ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant after her failed attempt before the writ Court to seek a direction for allotment of dealership of Liquified Petroleum Gas (in short, “LPG”) has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Before the writ Court a challenge was laid by her to the rejection order vide Ref. No. RAO/D1/rejection dated 21st August 2018 and consequent forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.40,000/-. 3. In W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2018 the writ Court has held as under : “24. Admittedly, the petitioner was seeking to get dealership in the rural area wherein it was required to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- as per the amount referred under the table as contained under condition No.22 and 10% of that has been deposited by the petitioner by way of security deposit. 25. The selection of the petitioner/candidate has been cancelled after the FVC and before issuance of the appointment letter, no LOI has been issued and as such, the security deposit amount deposited by the petitioner is to be forfeited in view of the condition stipulated under Condition No.26(B) of the brochure but here the issue has been raised that what be the quantum since according to the petitioner, 10% of the security deposit amount deposited by her i.e., Rs.40,000/- of Rs.4,00,000/-, 10% of which is Rs.4,000/-, therefore, an amount of Rs.4,000 is to be forfeited while according to the respondent an amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be forfeited. 26. 26. This Court after going across the condition stipulated under condition No.22 read with condition No.26 is of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation is to be accepted for the reason of stipulation made under condition No.26(B) wherein it has been stipulated that 10% of the applicable security deposit amount is to be forfeited ( ykxw lqj{kk tekjkf'k dk 10 çfr'kr tCr dj fy;k tk,xk ), when the word 'applicable security deposit' is there, therefore, the applicable security deposit is Rs.4,00,000/- for the rural distributors as is apparent from the table appended to condition No.22 as referred hereinabove and therefore, the entire amount of security deposit that was 10% of the security deposit amount i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- that would come to Rs.40,000/ -would be forfeited, which would be 10% of the applicable security deposit amount and therefore, the contention as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court in this regard and hence, no relief is to be extended in favour of the petitioner by issuing a positive direction in this regard to the effect that after deducting Rs.4,000/- the remaining amount i.e., Rs.36,000/- is to be refunded for the reason aforesaid. 27. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing a positive direction with respect to this prayer, therefore the same is having no merit and accordingly dismissed.” 4. Mr. Aditya Mohan Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited has raised a preliminary objection on the ground that in the first draw held on 13th August 2018 and the subsequent draw held on 17th January 2019 the appellant was not qualified and while so it is not open to her to challenge the award of dealership of LPG to the respondent no.4. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has taken the following stand : “6.10 That it is submitted that after the aforesaid rejection of the candidature of the appellant, a fresh draw of lots was held on 13.09.2018 amongst the rest of the candidates. In the said draw of lots, 3 candidates were present and Md. Mojibur Rahman was declared as successful candidate. In the said draw of lots, 3 candidates were present and Md. Mojibur Rahman was declared as successful candidate. However, his candidature was also rejected by the Respondent Company because there was no Registered Lease Deed of the land offered by him. Thereafter, again a draw of lots was held on 17.01.2019 wherein two Applicants were present and Md. Basiruddin was declared as the successful candidate and he has been appointed as the Distributor of L.P.G. for the advertised location of Village Damdama, as per the guidelines of the Respondent Company. It is humbly submitted that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of Md. Basiruddin.” 6. Mr. Kumar Sundaram, the learned counsel for the appellant has however endeavoured to persuade us to interfere with the rejection order dated 21st August 2018 on the ground that in terms of Clause 22 r/w Clause 26 of the Broucher of Indian Oil Corporation Limited published in June 2017 the appellant offered alternative land and submitted details of land through letter dated 18th April 2018 by Registered Post but that was not considered by the Chief Area Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and application of the appellant for award of the aforesaid dealership has been mechanically rejected and security deposit forfeited. 7. As it would appear from para-26 of the writ Court's order, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has been directed to refund the security deposit after deducting applicable 10% amount of the security deposit. This direction has been issued by the writ Court in consonance with Clause 26 (B) of the Broucher of Indian Oil Corporation Limited which contained a stipulation that 10% of the security deposit shall be forfeited in the event of termination. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has stated thus : “6.1 That the Appellant in the writ proceeding and the present appeal is primarily aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature for the allotment of Liquid Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) Distributorship, in the nature of Gramin Vitrak of the Respondent Company for the location at Village-Damdama, District - Pakur, the advertisement 13.08.2017. 6.2 That it is most humbly submitted that the rejection of the said candidature of the Appellant was valid and as per the guidelines of the Respondent Company for allotment of LP.G. Distributorship. 6.2 That it is most humbly submitted that the rejection of the said candidature of the Appellant was valid and as per the guidelines of the Respondent Company for allotment of LP.G. Distributorship. It is submitted that the advertised location for the L.P.G. Distributorship was Village-Damdama situated at Gram Panchyat-Damdama, Block-Maheshpur, District Pakur. Accordingly, the advertised location was Village Damdama in Gram Panchyat-Damdama and not Gram Panchyat Damdama as a whole as is being misinterpreted by the Appellant. It is humbly submitted that there are various Villages under Gram Panchyat-Damdama but the advertised location was Village-Damdama and pot any other Village in Gram Panchyat-Damdama. 6.3 That the land originally offered by the Appellant for establishment of the showroom for the said L.P.G. Distributorship was at Village-Raghunathpur and not at Village-Damdama. It may be considered that Village Damdama and Village Raghunathpur are two different Villages and they cannot be considered to be one and the same. Further, it is also pertinent to consider that the nature of the L.P.G. Distributorship, which was to be allotted, was of Gramin Vitrak and accordingly the location of the Village, in this case Village-Damdama, for establishing the showroom was a mandatory condition. However, it is an admitted position that the land offered by the Appellant for showroom was in Village-Raghunathpur and not in Village-Damdama. Thus, the rejection of the candidature of the Appellant by the Respondent Company is valid and not arbitrary. 6.4 That it is humbly submitted that a physical verification of the land, offered by the Appellant inter alia for showroom, was carried out by the officers of the Respondent Company on 14.02.2018. During the said physical verification, it was confirmed that the land offered by the Appellant for showroom was not situated in the advertised location which is Village-Damdama. Accordingly, the Respondent Company, vide its letter dated 19.02.2018 issued to the Appellant, gave an opportunity to the Appellant to provide an alternate land for showroom in the advertised location as per the eligibility criteria. In the said letter the Appellant was given three days' time, from the receipt of the said letter, to provide such alternate land. 6.5 That the Appellant despite receiving the said letter dated 19.02.2018 of the Respondent Company, did not offer any alternate land. In the said letter the Appellant was given three days' time, from the receipt of the said letter, to provide such alternate land. 6.5 That the Appellant despite receiving the said letter dated 19.02.2018 of the Respondent Company, did not offer any alternate land. Subsequently, the Respondent Company, vide its letter dated 12.03.2018 addressed to the Appellant, again gave an opportunity to the Appellant for providing alternate land for showroom within two days of receipt of the said letter. In the said letter, the Respondent Company had categorically stated that if the Appellant does not offer an alternate land within two days from the receipt of the said letter then the Respondent Company will take action against the Appellant. But the Appellant, despite receiving the said letter dated 12.03.2018 of the Respondent Company, did not offer any alternate land within the stipulated time period. 6.6 That subsequently, the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) Report of the Appellant was made on 23.03.2018 by the officials of Respondent Company, wherein it was reconfirmed that the land offered by the Appellant for showroom was not in the advertised location of Village-Damdama and as till the date of said FVC report, no alternate land was offered by the Appellant, hence it was concluded that the land offered by the Appellant for showroom, did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for L.P.G. Distributorship. Accordingly, the candidature of the Appellant was rejected by the Respondent Company. 6.7 That it is further pertinent to consider that the alternate land, which was offered by the Appellant to the Respondent Company, was offered on 17.06.2018, which was much after the stipulated time period and also much after the said FVC Report where it was concluded that the land offered by the Appellant for showroom was not fulfilling the eligibility criterion. Accordingly, the belated offering of alternate land by the Appellant, was of no avail. Further, without prejudice the aforesaid, it is humbly submitted on behalf of the answering Respondents that even the said alternate land offered by the Appellant was not fulfilling eligibility criterion as the said land was not owned by the Appellant, but allegedly owned by her Great Grand Father, who does not come under the definition of family unit provided in the relevant guidelines of the Respondent Company.” 9. Even if accepting the plea of alternative plot of land offered by the appellant, this remains an admitted position that the appellant was not eligible in the subsequent draw held on 13th January 2018 and 17th January 2019 which was conducted for the same dealership at village Damdama. This is well-settled a proposition in law that the administrative decision of the authority shall not generally be interfered in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is shown to the Court that such decision was arbitrary, actuated with malice or whimsical. In our opinion, once the award of dealership in favour of the appellant was cancelled and fresh draw was held for the same dealership at village Damdama, the appellant was no longer a candidate for award of dealership and no interference is required with the administrative decision of the Chief Area Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 10. Viewed thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 8th May 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2018 and, accordingly, L.P.A. No.454 of 2019 is dismissed. 11. I.A. No.8303 of 2022 and I.A. No.6407 of 2023 stand disposed of.