JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing e-mail communication of the respondent no. 4 dated 17.02.2020 (Anneuxre-9 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner was informed that the documents with respect to the offered land submitted by her along with application filed for grant of retail outlet dealership at ‘Between KM Stone of 140 to 143 of NH 39’ in the district of Palamau under SC category were not valid for consideration under Group-2 for the reason that the name of landowner was wrongly mentioned as well as Khata number was also missing in the details furnished by her in the format of said application and therefore her candidature was found ineligible mentioning in the said e-mail that her candidature might get considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per the guidelines. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to confirm the selection of the petitioner as dealer of the retail out (petrol pump) and to issue Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) in her favour under Group-2 as she was initially selected under the said category. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice inviting application was published on 25.11.2018 by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Ranchi, Jharkhand for selection of retail outlet dealership for various locations in Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner applied on-line on 22.12.2018 under category "SC" for the location mentioned at Sl. No. 241 of the advertisement which was “between KM Stone of 140 to 143 (NH-39)” in Palamau district after entering into an agreement with the land owner with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 08, Plot No. 124, Mouza-Shahganj measuring an area of 170 ft. x 150 ft. which was notarised on 22.12.2018. 3. It is further submitted that at the time of filing online application, the petitioner had filled her name in one of the columns at Sl. No. 13 of the application format (Land details- Group-2) concerning the “Name(s) of owner of land/lease holder”. In another column i.e., “relationship with applicant”, the petitioner filled 'self'. There was another column as “Khesra No./Khatauni/Gut No/Survey no.” in which petitioner filled plot No. 124, but did not mention Khata number. Thereafter, the respondent no. No. 13 of the application format (Land details- Group-2) concerning the “Name(s) of owner of land/lease holder”. In another column i.e., “relationship with applicant”, the petitioner filled 'self'. There was another column as “Khesra No./Khatauni/Gut No/Survey no.” in which petitioner filled plot No. 124, but did not mention Khata number. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4, vide e-mail dated 10.06.2019, informed the petitioner that she was qualified for ‘draw of lots’ for selection of Retail Outlet (RO) dealership and she was asked to be physically present in ‘draw of lots’ scheduled to be held on 20.06.2019 at 13:10 hrs. The petitioner's name appeared in the result of ‘draw of lots’ and accordingly, the respondent no. 4, vide e-mail dated 21.06.2019, informed her regarding selection with respect to the retail outlet dealership for the said location. 4. The petitioner was also informed by the respondent no. 4 on the same day i.e., 21.06.2019 vide e-mail stating that she was declared as successful candidate in the ‘draw of lots’ and was directed to remit online Rs. 30,000/- towards ‘initial security deposit’ as well as to submit the required documents for processing her application for award of retail outlet dealership for the said location. Accordingly, the petitioner remitted Rs. 30,000/- online through debit card as well as submitted the required documents on 24.06.2019. Thereafter, she was informed by the Sales Officer, Palamau Area that she had mentioned plot No. 124 in the application form but Khata number was not mentioned in the same and therefore she was directed to submit an affidavit in this regard. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the original copy of the required affidavit dated 11.09.2019 and submitted the same in the office of the respondents at Ranchi on the same day. Subsequently, the petitioner received e-mail dated 17.02.2020 sent by the respondent no. 4 mentioning that the land documents submitted by her were not valid for considering the offered land under Group-2 for the reasons that the land owner’s name was wrongly mentioned and Khata number was also missing in the concerned column of the application form and hence her candidature was found ineligible. It was further mentioned in the said e-mail that her candidature might be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per the guidelines. 5. It was further mentioned in the said e-mail that her candidature might be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per the guidelines. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the petitioner did not have her own landed property, however she entered into a lease agreement for this very purpose and the land owner also submitted his affidavit in this regard. The said documents were produced by her before the respondent authorities and thereafter the petitioner qualified in Group-2 after scrutiny of her application by the respondent authorities. She was invited to participate in ‘draw of lots’ and being declared as successful candidate, was asked to deposit security money of Rs.30,000/-. However, her candidature was subsequently rejected on technical ground that her application form was not properly filled up. Such action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary. 6. It is further submitted that at the time of filing of online application, the petitioner filled as 'self' in the column of "relationship with land owner" due to confusion, however, she submitted all supporting leasehold documents executed between her and the land owner. Further, the petitioner filled her own name because as per notarised agreement, she got liberty to use the land taken on lease for any purpose as per her will. However, as per direction of sales officer of the respondent-IOCL, the petitioner submitted affidavit and rectified all the mistakes as pointed out by the respondents. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner provided wrong information at Serial No.13 of her application form claiming that she was the land owner/lessor but the actual fact was that the land offered by the petitioner was owned by one Abdul Hamid Ansari. The petitioner had also not provided Khata number of the offered land and as such she was placed under Group-3. It is further submitted that as per the procedure, when there was no eligible applicant under Group-1 and Group-2, all the applicants including the petitioner who were relegated to Group- 3, were given an additional opportunity to offer suitable land within a period of three months from letter dated 21.06.2022. Thus, the extended window was opened for all the applicants under Group-3 till 20.09.2022 to offer suitable land, however the petitioner did not offer suitable land within the stipulated time. Thus, the extended window was opened for all the applicants under Group-3 till 20.09.2022 to offer suitable land, however the petitioner did not offer suitable land within the stipulated time. Hence, no further opportunity can be given to the petitioner as per the prevailing selection guidelines. It is also submitted that in the “re-draw of lots” conducted on 25.11.2022, one Abhimanyu Kumar was selected but later on his candidature was also rejected and now the re-draw is to be conducted between the remaining two applicants i.e., Geeta Kumari and Reshmi Kumari. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The oil marketing companies i.e., Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum have jointly issued a ‘Brochure’ regarding selection of dealers for regular & rural retail outlets in which three groups have been classified for award of retail outlet dealership. Those applicants, who offer their own land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership or long term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months, have been placed under Group-1 whereas those applicants, who do not possess their own land with absolute ownership right but having firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease agreement with the land owner and offer the same to concerned oil marketing company for the dealership of petrol pump, have been placed under Group-2. The last Group is Group-3 in which those applicants have been placed who do not offer any land in the application as they neither have their own land with absolute ownership right nor have entered into lease agreement with any land owner at the time of filing of the application form, but assure the concerned oil marketing company to arrange the land for petrol pump after confirmation of their dealership. Applications under Group-3 are processed/advised to offer land only in case where no eligible applicant is found or get selected under Group-1 and Group-2. 10. The petitioner had applied for dealership of petrol pump in Group-2 and initially she was selected for the dealership, however later on due to incorrect information furnished by her in columns of Serial No. 13 of the application form, she was relegated to Group-3. 10. The petitioner had applied for dealership of petrol pump in Group-2 and initially she was selected for the dealership, however later on due to incorrect information furnished by her in columns of Serial No. 13 of the application form, she was relegated to Group-3. Since no person was found eligible under Group-1 and Group-2, those persons, who were relegated to Group-3, were given three months’ time to offer suitable land with correct details, however the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity within the stipulated time. As such, her candidature was cancelled and re-draw was conducted between the next eligible candidates. 11. The claim of the respondents is that the petitioner committed mistake in filling columns at Serial No.13, which has not been denied by her, however she has claimed that the said mistake was committed due to confusion. The petitioner has also failed to controvert the claim of the respondents to the effect that she was given opportunity to offer suitable land under Group-3 but she failed to avail the same within the stipulated time. 12. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner had committed mistake under confusion while filing the columns at Serial No. 13 of the application form, no justification has been shown as to why she did not avail the opportunity given to her under Group-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given much stress to the argument that once the petitioner was selected under Group-2 after ‘draw of lots’, she could not have been relegated under Group-3. I do not find any substance in the said argument since the petitioner herself had given declaration in the application form that if any information/declaration given in the application form or if any document was found untrue or incorrect or false, the respondent-IOCL would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of intent/terminate the dealership (if already appointed). 13. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.