ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the letter bearing Ref. No. 15453769031850 dated 01.10.2019 issued by the head of Divisional Office, Dhanbad, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., whereby the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership at within 1.0 Km from +2 High School towards Satgawan on LHS on Gawan-Satgawan Road, Block-Gawan, District-Giridih under Open Category has not been found eligible for consideration on the ground of invalid land documents stating the reason that as per land documents & family tree, the land does not fall under Group-1. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for grant of dealership for the said location in her favour. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondents issued advertisement dated 25.11.2018 inviting applications for grant of retail outlet at Gawan-Satgawan Road, Block-Gawan, District-Giridih under Open Category. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner made an application for grant of retail outlet dealership and she was finally declared successful in draw of lots held on 27.06.2019 for selection of retail outlet dealership for the said location, subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the respondent-Corporation in this regard. The result of said draw of lots was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 vide its letter dated 30.06.2019. Subsequently, another letter dated 30.06.2019 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2, wherein she was requested to remit an amount of Rs. 40,000/- online as initial security deposit and submit the set of documents as specified in the said letter within 10 days. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount of initial security as well as specified documents within the prescribed time limit, she received another letter dated 10.07.2019 requesting her to remit the said amount online and to submit the specified documents within 10 days, failing which her candidature was liable to be rejected without any further notice. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the IOCL through State Bank of India. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the IOCL through State Bank of India. The petitioner also submitted the documents along with the said amount as required by the said letter and in support of land documents, she submitted an affidavit giving the family tree which would show that the land offered by the petitioner belongs to her husband. Though the petitioner had furnished all the documents required by the respondent-Corporation, she was issued impugned letter dated 01.10.2019 intimating that her candidature for award of retail outlet dealership was found ineligible due to the reason that her offered land did not fall under Group-1 category as per the land documents and the family tree submitted by her. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the Guidelines as contained in “Brochure On Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process” dated 24.11.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Brochure”) issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, an offered land is categorized into three categories i.e. Group 1, 2 and 3. The respondents, however, wrongly considered the candidature of the petitioner for selection along with Group-3 applicants. Since the petitioner had offered the land belonging to her husband and his family, there was no reason that the land offered by her could be treated as not falling under Group-1 category. It is also submitted that the impugned letter is cryptic in nature as no specific reason has been assigned in the same as to why the land offered by the petitioner has been held as not falling under Group-1 category. Group-3 refers to those candidates who have not offered land in the application. The petitioner had submitted the family tree on affidavit giving details of the land and the respondents have not given any particular reason for holding the candidature of the petitioner ineligible in Group-1. It is further submitted that the respondents have accepted security amount of Rs. 40,000/- which was demanded by them and as such, they should not have rejected the petitioner’s application in a cryptic manner. The ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application explained in the counter affidavit was not mentioned in the impugned order and as such, the respondents cannot be allowed to supplement the same at a later stage. 40,000/- which was demanded by them and as such, they should not have rejected the petitioner’s application in a cryptic manner. The ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application explained in the counter affidavit was not mentioned in the impugned order and as such, the respondents cannot be allowed to supplement the same at a later stage. The petitioner in her application had proposed to offer the land owned by Hari Mahto, who had three sons. The father-in-law of the petitioner namely, Shankar Prasad Yadav is the elder son of Hari Mahto and as such, the respondents could have asked the petitioner to submit “no objection” from the other family members of the joint family. However, the petitioner’s application for grant of retail outlet dealership was rejected without providing any opportunity to show the ownership of the offered land. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the grandfather-in-law does not come under the definition of the family members. Had it been known to the petitioner, she would have certainly got the land transferred in the name of her husband by making appropriate application. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Clause 4(v) of the Brochure, the applicants for award of retail outlet dealership have been classified into three groups based on the land offered or not offered by them in their respective application forms. Group-1 is the category of applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the concerned Oil Marketing Company. Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure provides that the land owned by the family members of the applicant will also be considered as belonging to the applicant of Group-1, subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit from the concerned family members. It is further submitted that in the said clause, family members have been defined which does not include grandparents-in-law. It is further submitted that in the said clause, family members have been defined which does not include grandparents-in-law. The concerned land offered by the petitioner is neither owned by her nor by her family members as defined in Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure, rather the said land was owned by her grandfather-in-law, who does not come under the definition of family members and hence, such land offered by the petitioner has rightly been treated as not valid for consideration under Group-1 applicants and accordingly, her candidature has been relegated for being considered under Group-3 applicants. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- which has been submitted by the petitioner is in the form of security deposit which is subject to compliance of the terms and conditions for allotment of retail outlet dealership by her. The petitioner, only by making the said payment of security deposit cannot be entitled to obtain the retail outlet dealership specifically when she does not fulfill the terms and conditions of allotment of retail outlet as provided in the aforesaid guidelines. The respondent-IOCL has already selected and issued the letter of intent to one Mr. Ashish Kumar awarding of the retail outlet dealership at the concerned location and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to restrain the respondents from granting dealership of the retail outlet at the said location to a suitable candidate. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with letter dated 01.10.2019, whereby she has been informed that in view of the land documents and family tree submitted by her, the offered land does not fall under Group-1. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions incorporated in the Brochure, the relevant part of which is quoted herein-below: 4. Eligibility Criteria for Individual Applicants-Proprietorship/Partnership: .................... (v) Land (Applicable to all categories) The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form: Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group 3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Applications under Group 3 would be processed/advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group 1 and 2. .................... The other conditions with respect to offering of land are as under: (e) The land owned by the family members will also be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group 1) subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) from the concerned family members. For this purpose family members would compromise of: (i) Self (ii) Spouse (iii) Father/Mother including Step Father/Step Mother (iv) Brother/Sister/Step Brother/Step Sister (v) Son/Daughter/Step Son/Step Daughter (vi) Son-in-law/Daughter-in-law (vii) Parents-in-law (viii) Grand Parents (both maternal and paternal) 7. It would thus be evident that a person having suitable piece of land in the advertised location either by way of ownership/long term lease for the specified period in his own name or in the name of his family members specifically categorized under Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure, comes under Group-1 category. Apparently, the land in question was in the name of Hari Mahto (grandfather-in-law of the petitioner) and in view of the definition of family members given under Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure, Hari Mahto was not the family member of the petitioner so as to consider her application for retail outlet dealership under Group-1 category. 8. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason for not considering the petitioner’s application under Group-1 category has not been elaborately mentioned in the impugned letter dated 01.10.2019 and as such, the same cannot be supplemented by the respondents through the counter affidavit. 9. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the letter dated 01.10.2019, the relevant part of which is quoted herein-below: 1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application form No. 15453769031850 on the subject. 2. Please also refer to our letter dated 10.07.2019 and wherein you were advised to submit certain documents. 3. Please refer to your application received by us as Application form No. 15453769031850 on the subject. 2. Please also refer to our letter dated 10.07.2019 and wherein you were advised to submit certain documents. 3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1 for reasons as detailed below: As per land documents and Family tree, land doesn’t fall under Group 1. 4. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that your candidature has been found ineligible. However, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines. 10. It was specifically mentioned in the letter dated 01.10.2019 that as per the land documents and family tree, the offered land did not fall under Group-1 category and as per the guidelines, her candidature might be considered for selection along with the category of Group-3 applicants. Thus, I am of the view that the reason was already mentioned in the impugned letter. Moreover, the petitioner has admitted that the land belonged to her grandfather-in-law. 11. The petitioner’s application for grant of retail outlet dealership has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. In Column-13 of the said Form, the petitioner has stated that the piece of offered land is owned by her /her family member as defined in Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure either by way of ownership or by long term lease. It has been further stated that as per the documents and report of the Advocate available with her, the said offer qualified for being considered under Group-1 as defined in Clause 4(v) of the Brochure. Further, the petitioner has given undertaking under Column-15 as well as a declaration at the bottom of the application that if on verification by the Oil Company, the information furnished by her is found false/incorrect/misrepresented, then her candidature will stand cancelled and she will be declared ineligible for the Retail Outlet Dealership. 12. I am of the view that since the petitioner had already stated in the application that the land offered by her was owned by her family member as defined in Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure which was subsequently found false by the IOCL, she cannot claim her right to be awarded the said retail outlet dealership merely on the ground of submitting the security amount. The petitioner is also not permitted to claim that she had no knowledge of the definition of the family members as there was already a reference of Clause 4(v)(e) of the Brochure in her application. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to set aside the impugned letter dated 01.10.2019 issued by the head of Divisional Office, Dhanbad. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. I.A. No. 3587 of 2021 filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking impleadment of one Mr. Ashish Kumar as party respondent in the writ petition being the awardee of the concerned retail outlet dealership is also dismissed as the writ petition itself has been dismissed on merit.