JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- I. The letter/order dated 10.3.2018 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship at Dhariawad, district Pratapgarh may kindly be set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to allot LPG distributorship at Dhariawad, district Pratapgarh to the petitioner. II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as HPCL in short) vide its advertisement dated 23.8.2017 (Annexure-R1) invited applications to grant LPG Distributorship under various categories and locations in the state of Rajasthan, for which the petitioner applied for the said LPG distributorship under the Gramin Open Category for location Dhariabad, District Pratapgarh and thus in response to the said advertisement the petitioner submitted an online application form dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-1) for which the cut off date for submission of form was 25.09.2017. The petitioner proposed/suggested land for the LPG distributorship at Village Undawela which is 3 kms away from the location Dhariabad as mentioned in the advertisement. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner's application was registered as reference No.HPC12110046622092017 and through letter dated 2.12.2017, (Annexure-2) the respondent No.2 Chief Regional Manager, Jodhpur Regional Office, HPCL informed the petitioner that she has been found successful in the draw of lots conducted on 1.12.2017 for selection of LPG Distributorship and was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/-through Demand Draft/Pay order in favour of HPCL and was also directed to submit certain documents within a period of seven days from the date of receiving the email failing which her candidature would be liable to be rejected. 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 2.12.2017, the petitioner submitted letter dated 8.12.2017 (Annexure-3) along with the requisite fees of Rupees forty thousand (DD No.182027 dated 4.12.2017) and 23 documents for the LPG distributorship, including the No objection certificates and consent letters of joint khatedars. 5. 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 2.12.2017, the petitioner submitted letter dated 8.12.2017 (Annexure-3) along with the requisite fees of Rupees forty thousand (DD No.182027 dated 4.12.2017) and 23 documents for the LPG distributorship, including the No objection certificates and consent letters of joint khatedars. 5. The respondent No. 2 Chief Regional Manager, Jodhpur Regional Office, HPCL Vide letter dated 10.3.2018 (Annexure-4), informed the petitioner that the petitioner’s candidature had been canceled for allotment of LPG distributorship as the respondent conducted a field verification for the land suggested by the petitioner located at Village Undawela and examined all the documents submitted by the petitioner and found that the land was in joint khatedari and the partition of the said land had also not been done and secondly the land which the petitioner suggested was situated at Village Undawela and not at the proposed LPG Distributorship location Dhariabad which was against the guidelines for selection of LPG distributorship. Further it was mentioned in the letter that the petitioner was asked for giving an alternate land for setting up of LPG godown but the petitioner informed that she did not have any alternate land. Thus as per the guidelines of the HPCL, the petitioner's candidature was canceled. 6. Aggrieved by the letter dated 10.03.2018 (Annexure-4) passed by the Chief Regional Manager, HPCL on the grounds that the proposed land suggested by the petitioner for establishing godown is in joint khatedari and secondly that the proposed land suggested by the petitioner for opening the showroom is not situated at the location Dhariabad as mentioned in the advertisement, thus on the rejection of her candidature, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Hence this writ petition. 7. Hence this writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed land suggested by the petitioner at Village Undawela is 3 kms away from the location Dhariabad, for which the petitioner applied for the LPG distributorship, thus, canceling the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship is not tenable in the eye of law as the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions as per respondent’s guidelines and brochure (Annexure-5) particularly the clause 1 (C) iii of the guidelines which provides that as specified by oil marketing companies regarding Village distributors, LPG distributorship will cover villages falling within 15 kms from the proposed location and clause (w) of the guidelines/brochure issued by the respondents which provides that if the land proposed by the petitioner is jointly owned by the applicant’s family members then a No Objection Certificate from the joint owners in the form of a notarized affidavit be submitted by the applicant. Clause “1 (C) iii” and Clause “w” of the guidelines is reproduced here as under: “1(C) iii. xzkeh.k forjd % bl xzkeh.k {ks= 'kCn dh ifjHkk"kk nLrkost esa] 2011 dh tux.kuk esa xzkeh.k ds vuqlkj gksxh xzkeh.k {ks= esa fLFkr ,yihth fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki dks xzkeh.k forjd dgk tk,xk vkSj ;g fufnZ"V xzkeh.k {ks= ds ,yihth xzkgdksa dks lsok iznku djsxkA izk;% xzkeh.k forjd lacaf/kr vks,elh }kjk fufnZ"B {ks= vkSj@vFkok ,yihth fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki dh lhek ds 15 fdyksehVj ds vanj vkus okys xkaoksa dks doj djrk gSaA^^ “W. ;fn tehu vkosnd@vkosnd ds ifjokj bdkbZ ¼cgq&Mhyjf'ki@fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki ;FkkifjHkkf"kr½ ds fu;e lnL;@ekrk&firk esa ,oa nknk&nknh ¼ekr`i{k ,oa fir`i{k nksuksa½ ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke la;qDr LokfeRo dh gS vkSj vkosnd@vkosnd ds ifjokj ds bdkbZ ekrk&firk ,oa nknk&nknh ¼ekr`i{k ,oa fir`i{k nksuksa½ ds uke dh tehu dk fgLlk vko’;d Mkbesa’ku lfgr tehu dh vko';drk dks iwjk djrk gS rks xksnke ,oa 'kks:e dh og tehu Hkh vius tehu ds :i esa ik=rk ds fy, ;ksX; gS] c'krsZ vU; Lokfe;ksa ls uksVjh fd;s gq, ‘kiFk i= ds :i esa vukifr izek.k i= tek fd, tk,A^^ 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner submitted No Objection certificates of joint Khatedars along with its letter dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure-2) therefore canceling/rejecting of the petitioner’s candidature for LPG distributorship is not tenable in the eyes of law. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner submitted No Objection certificates of joint Khatedars along with its letter dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure-2) therefore canceling/rejecting of the petitioner’s candidature for LPG distributorship is not tenable in the eyes of law. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the proposed land for godown is situated at Village Undawela, which falls under Dhariabad panchayat samiti which can be perused from Jamabandi (Annexure-6) of the proposed land therefore the respondents cannot contend that the proposed land is not as per the guidelines. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the action of the respondent HPCL in not allotting LPG distributorship to the petitioner despite of having fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, permissions and documents is a colourable exercise of powers, when the land of the petitioner had already been accepted for allotment of LPG distributorship and all the formalities had been completed thus there was no reason to reject the candidature of the petitioner which is against the guidelines/brochure issued by the respondents. He also submitted that the refusal of allotment for LPG distributorship to the petitioner has caused gross injustice to the petitioner and is a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner when there is no plausible reason for rejecting the same. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it was mentioned in the letter dated 10.03.2018 issued by the Chief Regional Manager, HPCL that after the field verification of the location, an opportunity for alternate land was given to the petitioner and thus as per the letter the petitioner informed that the petitioner does not have an alternate land but no such opportunity was given by the respondents and there is no documentary evidence which shows that an opportunity was given to the petitioner for providing an alternate land, which is violation of clause 18) B of the guidelines which mandates that the petitioner to be given an opportunity to provide an alternate land for LPG distributorship. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the property in question measures a total of 46 Bighas and the requirement of size of plot as per the advertisement of the respondent is 26x 21 sq. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the property in question measures a total of 46 Bighas and the requirement of size of plot as per the advertisement of the respondent is 26x 21 sq. meters, thus, it is abundantly clear that, even if the property in question was partitioned amongst the joint holders, then also the share of each holder would come out to be more than what was required as per the advertisement, thus canceling of the candidature of the petitioner for LPG distributorship cannot stand. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship was rejected by the respondents which is dehors the guidelines/brochures issued by the respondents. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for allotment of LPG distributorship and all the terms and conditions of the guidelines/brochure. He Further submitted that as per clause 1 (C) iii of the guidelines a candidate could suggest land within 15 kms of proposed LPG distributorship at Dhariabad and therefore the Village Undawela is only 3 kms away from the proposed LPG distributorship location Dhariabad and therefore the impugned order/letter dated 10.03.2018 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. Per contra the Learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that at perusal of the advertisement dated 23.08.2017 for which the location for which the petitioner applied was Dhariabad, the same was advertised in the Gramin Vitrak Category for which the candidate was required to offer land for godown/Showroom and the same was required to be within the advertised location but In the present writ petition, the land offered by the petitioner for showroom was to be within the limits of Village Dhariabad and the petitioner had not offered land for showroom in location Dhariabad and therefore his candidature was rightly rejected. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted that the land proposed by the petitioner is at Village Undawela and is about 3 Km from Village Dhariabad and not as per the advertised location mentioned in the advertisement dated 23.08.2017. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted that the land proposed by the petitioner is at Village Undawela and is about 3 Km from Village Dhariabad and not as per the advertised location mentioned in the advertisement dated 23.08.2017. Therefore, the same could not have been accepted, further submitted that the land offered by the petitioner was at Khasra No.44/53/54/55 at Village Undawela which was examined by the respondent Company’s Officials during the field verification, On investigation, it was revealed that the land offered by the petitioner cannot be considered as suitable for setting up of godown because it was a land in joint khatedari. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted that the same piece of land at khasra No.44/53/54/55 at Village Undawela has been offered by Smt Harsha Chauhan (HPC12110046622092017), Smt Anjana Chauhan (App.No. HPC12110046722092017) and Smt Meenakshi Chauhan (App.No. HPC12110054323092017) for the purpose of showroom land and godown land which is violation of the unified guidelines clause 8 (A) (m) therefore her candidature was rightly rejected as multiple applications were received for same piece of land. The relevant portion of the clause 8 (A) (m) of the unified guidelines 2017 is reproduced here as under: "that the same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular location against the advertisement. In case it is found at any stage that the same piece of land for Showroom has been offered by more than one applicant for the same location then all such applications would be rejected or if selection has been done, then the same would be canceled" 18. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted that the land offered for setting up of godown is situated in Khasra No.44/53/54/55 in Village Undawela cannot be considered as the same was a joint property owned by the 8 persons. The exact dimension of the land which was proposed by the petitioner was not demarcated and therefore even the dimension of the land could not be verified as per the guidelines. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted that it was further revealed that during the field verification, dispute was found to be pending for the land proposed by the petitioner for LPG distributorship before the District Court Pratapgarh titled Mani Pai Vs. Sajjan Lal bearing Case No.37/2010. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted that it was further revealed that during the field verification, dispute was found to be pending for the land proposed by the petitioner for LPG distributorship before the District Court Pratapgarh titled Mani Pai Vs. Sajjan Lal bearing Case No.37/2010. Sajjan lal is one of the joint owner of Khasra No. 44/53/54/55 in Village Undawela. The petitioner have submitted the NOC of Hemant Chouhan S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Dig Vijay Singh S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Mukesh S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Vijay @Vaji, Devi w/o Shri Surendra Mishtri, Ramesh S/o Late Shri Gordhan, Kaushalya w/o Late Shri Kanahaiya Lal, Sunil S/o Late Shri Kanahaiya Lal, Monika D/o Shri Kanahaiya Lal, Giriraj S/o Shri Sajjan Lal, Heman S/oShri Sajjan Lal, Dinesh S/o Shri Sajjan Lal and therefore their NOC is of no assistance to the petitioner to avail allotment of LPG distributorship as the land could not be identified and verified during field verification to comply with the guidelines & also the land was disputed, which was not suitable for the respondent corporation thus the petitioner has failed to offer the land as required under the guidelines and therefore the same was rightly rejected. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted that the land for setting up of Showroom for LPG is concerned, the same was required to be within the boundaries of Dhariabad whereas the petitioner's proposed land was within the boundary limit of Village Undawela and therefore the same cannot be considered. He further submitted that a bare perusal of the Jamabandi which has been placed on record as Annexure-6 by the petitioner would reveal that the land is situated at Revenue Village Undawela, Patwar Halka, Gogiyawas, land record Halka Dhariabad, District Pratapgarh. Thus the land as offered for showroom is not falling within the boundaries limits of advertised location i.e. Dhariabad as per clause No.8 (A)(n) of unified Guidelines 2017 which clearly states that the applicant should own a suitable land in the ”advertised location i.e. within the municipal town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of ‘location’ in the advertisement.” Hence the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for suitable land for LPG showroom. He further submitted that the petitioner herself has admitted that village Undawela is about 3 Kms from Dhariabad and therefore the same cannot be considered as suitable land for showroom. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted that false allegations were leveled by the petitioner that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to offer alternate land whereas an option for providing an alternate land was given to the petitioner however, the petitioner expressed her inability to provide alternate land, also there was no representation given by the petitioner to the Respondent Corporation for providing an alternate land by her, He further submitted that no such offer has been made nor any documents to offer alternate land has been placed on record. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner are absolutely illegal, baseless and frivolous. 22. Learned Counsel for the private respondent adopted the arguments of the AAG for State and further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Swapan Kumar Pal versus Achintya Kumar Nayak & Ors reported in (2007) 7 SCC 311. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “19. In a case of this nature, ordinarily, the High Court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For exercising the power of judicial review, the Court has a limited role to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in the decision making process. It could not enter into the merit of the decision.” The learned counsel for the private respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case K. Vinod Kumar versus S.Palanisamy and Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 471. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “7. The proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board must satisfy the requirements of a bona fide administrative decision arrived at in a fair manner. There are no mala fides alleged against the Dealer Selection Board or the President or any Member thereof. There is no specific plea raised impugning the manner of marking. It appears that all the three members of the Board including the President conducted the proceedings, and each one of them gave marks expressing his own assessment of the merits of the applicants. There is no specific plea raised impugning the manner of marking. It appears that all the three members of the Board including the President conducted the proceedings, and each one of them gave marks expressing his own assessment of the merits of the applicants. The marks given by the three were then totaled and arranged in the order of merit. The appellant herein topped the list. In the absence of a legal particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for the Board to follow, no fault can be found with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Board. The Board is entrusted with the task of finding out the best suitable candidate and, so long as the power is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt its own procedure subject to satisfying the test of reasonableness and fairness. There is no avernment that the procedure adopted by the Board was arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. 11. The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of the BPCL to issue letter of allotment to the appellant herein.” 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rebuttal submitted that to the extent that the location of Village Dhariabad was advertised as one for 'Gramin Vitrak' category and the petitioner applied for the said location and further that as per the OMC Guidelines in Clause 1(c)(i), the 'Gramin Vitrak' distributorship area has been defined as one that covers 'all villages' within the area of 15 Kms from the boundary limits of the LPG distributorship location. It has been admitted by the respondents also that the petitioner’s property situated at Undawela which is within 3 Kms of the proposed location i.e. Dhariabad. He further submitted that , the definition of the term 'village' as mentioned in 1(h) categorically mentions that a revenue village may contain several hamlets. It has been admitted by the respondents also that the petitioner’s property situated at Undawela which is within 3 Kms of the proposed location i.e. Dhariabad. He further submitted that , the definition of the term 'village' as mentioned in 1(h) categorically mentions that a revenue village may contain several hamlets. In the instant case, the petitioner's property is situated in Undawela which falls within Panchayat Samiti, Dhariabad as evident from the certificates issued by the Block Development Officer & Panchayat Samiti, Dhariabad. Therefore, in light of respondents guidelines, the respondents have wrongfully rejected the petitioner's application. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rebuttal further submitted that although the property is question has been jointly owned by the petitioner as well as her other family members, there is nothing in the guidelines that prohibited an applicant to offer a land which is jointly held by her with others, as long as a No-Objection Certificate from the other joint owners is obtained. In the instant case, the petitioner had already submitted the NoObjection Certificates granted by the other joint owners of the property in question which had been accepted by the respondents at the time of submission and verification of documents. He also submitted that as far as not providing the demarcation and the dimensions of the property is concerned, it is submitted that since the entire land parcel was then jointly owned by the petitioner and her family members, no partition had been done as respondents never mandated the same being done. It is pertinent to mention here that since then the property has been partitioned and the said partition has been recorded in the latest revenue records as well, However, such partition could have been effected but the respondents, without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, rejected her application. He further submitted that in respect to the land in question being disputed is concerned, that on the date of rejection of the petitioner's application, there existed no suit/dispute on the land in question. The parties to the civil suit as mentioned by the respondents in their reply, namely Case No. 37/2010 Mani Bai v Sajjan Lal before the District Court, Pratapgarh are in no manner related to the petitioner, the controversy involved in the same is regarding recovery of money which is remotely unconnected to the property in question. The parties to the civil suit as mentioned by the respondents in their reply, namely Case No. 37/2010 Mani Bai v Sajjan Lal before the District Court, Pratapgarh are in no manner related to the petitioner, the controversy involved in the same is regarding recovery of money which is remotely unconnected to the property in question. Therefore the said suit was of no consequence to the petitioner's application. Even otherwise, the said suit had been disposed of in December 2017. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rebuttal also submitted that as per the Guidelines issued by the respondents, particularly Clause 18(b) thereof, if the land offered by the applicant is not found suitable for godown/showroom in light of requirements set in the advertisement, the applicant may offer an alternate land in his/family member's name, subject to verification of the same, In the instant case, at the time of field verification, if the respondents did not consider the land offered by the petitioner to be suitable for the setting up of showroom, it was imperative for the respondents to afford the petitioner an opportunity to offer any alternative land, however, no such opportunity was granted. 26. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the bar. 27. This court observes that the petitioner had submitted online application for the location Dhariabad District- Pratapgarh under the Gramin Vitrak Category for which she was required to offer land for godown as well as showroom and as far as the land for showroom is concerned, the same is required to be within the advertised location i.e Dhariabad however, the land offered for showroom by the petitioner is at village Undawela which is about 3 kms from village Dhariabad. As per the clause 8 (A) (n) of the guidelines issued by the Oil Marketing companies 2017 the requirement was that the land should be within the boundaries of Village Dhariabad whereas the land offered by the petitioner was within the boundaries of village Undawela. As per the clause 8 (A) (n) of the guidelines issued by the Oil Marketing companies 2017 the requirement was that the land should be within the boundaries of Village Dhariabad whereas the land offered by the petitioner was within the boundaries of village Undawela. The relevant portion of Clause 8 (A) (n) of the guidelines is reproduced here as under: “The applicant should ‘Own' a suitable shop for Showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in outer dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location i.e. within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of 'location' in the advertisement.” The land for the showroom is falling in khasra No 44/53/54/55 and the Jamabandi placed on record by the petitioner (Annexure 6) reflects that the aforementioned land is falling in village Undawela, Patwar Halka, Gogiyawas District Pratapgarh. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner fulfilled the condition as laid down in clause 8 (A) (n). 28. This court further observes that during field verification of credentials process as stated by the learned AAG for State, the petitioner was given an option for providing an alternate land however she expressed her inability to do so. However learned Senior counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that no such offer of optional land was given to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not demonstrated by way of any document that she was in possession of any alternate land in accordance with the requirement laid down in the guidelines and before the cut off date ie 25.09.2017 as laid down in the advertisement (Annexure R/1). When petitioner’s land was declared non suitable by the respondents, the onus was upon the shoulders of the petitioner to show that an optional land was available with her having date of registration/lease before the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement but the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the same and therefore it cannot be said that the respondents did not offer her the option of an alternate land. 29. 29. This court also observes that as per the clause 8 (A) (m) if the same piece of land is offered by more than one person then all all the applications would be rejected and admittedly in the instant case the piece of land at Khasra no 44/53/54/55 at Village Undawela had been offered by Smt Harsha Chauhan (HPC12110046622092017) (petitioner), Smt Anjana Chauhan (App.No. HPC12110046722092017) and Smt Meenakshi Chauhan (App.No. HPC12110054323092017) for the purpose of showroom land and godown which is in clear violation of the clause 8 (A) (m) and thus the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. Admittedly the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of offering the land in the required place in consonance with the clause 8 (A)(n), also did not offer the alternate land for the LPG distributorship when she was given an option at the time field verification of credentials process and more than three applications were submitted including the application of the petitioner for the same piece of land situated at Khasra no 44/53/54/55 which was again in violation of clause 8(A) (m) of the guidelines. 30. This court further observes that the petitioner’s submission that though the land offered by her was in joint khatedari and the partition of the said land took place after the cut off date i.e. 25.09.2017 as laid down in the advertisement thus the submission of the petitioner that the land should have been considered as suitable as the partition took place is not sustainable. This Court also observes that the petitioner’s submission, that her land situated at Village Undawela, ought to have been considered suitable on the ground that a person can suggest the land within 15 kms of proposed LPG distributorship location at Dhariabad and the Village Undawela is only 3 kms away from the proposed LPG distributorship at Dhariabad, is not sustainable because as per clause 1 (c) iii of the Unified Guidelines, 2017, under the category of Gramin Vitrak, the retail outlet holder is required to give his services to the villages falling within an area of 15 kms and the guidelines do not permit the allotment of LPG godowns/showrooms for the land situated within an area of 15 kms from the proposed location Dhariabad and therefore, the petitioner has misinterpreted the guideline as laid down under clause 1 (c) iii of the Unified Guidelines, 2017. 31. 31. In this background and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed. Stay application as well as all the other pending applications, if any, also stand rejected.