JUDGMENT K.R. Mohapatra, J. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Letters dated 13th February, 2013 (Annexure-5), 14th May, 2014 (Annexure5/A) and notice dated 7th June, 2014(Annexure-5/C) issued by the Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'BPCL') are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 25th March, 2012 (Annexure-1) issued jointly by BPCL and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), the Petitioner applied for being appointed as a Distributor of LPG in the district of Nayagarh. A lottery was drawn on 10th March, 2012 and the Petitioner was found qualified. Thereafter land offered by the Petitioner for construction of godown/show room was inspected by the Assistant Managers (Sales) of BPCL physically and he found that the same found to be not suitable as it ad-measured 28 mt. x 22 mt. in dimension as against the minimum required dimension of 26.15 mt. x 27 mt. No assistance of any revenue staff was, however, taken for measurement of the land. 4. Vide letter dated 13th February, 2013 (Annexure-5), the Petitioner was intimated about rejection of his candidature on the ground that the land offered by him did not meet the required dimension for running the distributorship of LPG. 5. Assailing the order under Annexure-5, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. Considering the case of the Petitioner, notices were issued vide order dated 12th March, 2013 and an interim order was passed in Misc. Case No.4053 of 2013 directing that any selection made with regard to LPG distributorship of BPCL pursuant to Annexure-1 would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The interim order is continuing till date. 6. Subsequent to the rejection of his candidature, the Petitioner submitted a Representation on 16th February, 2013 [Annexure-5(1)] indicating that the dimension of the land is sufficient to run the LPG distributorship. He also requested for fresh consideration of his candidature. However, letter dated 14th May, 2014 (Annexure-5/A) was issued rejecting his representation as well as candidature on a completely different ground stating that the offered land did not fulfill the ownership norms and is also not freely accessible through all weather motorable road. 7. It is his submission that in spite of the aforesaid interim order, the letter/order under Annexure-5/A was issued by the BPCL during pendency of the writ petition. 7. It is his submission that in spite of the aforesaid interim order, the letter/order under Annexure-5/A was issued by the BPCL during pendency of the writ petition. The authority cannot supplement the ground of rejection of candidature of the Petitioner under Annnexure-5 by any other ground in the subsequent order, i.e., under Annexure-5/A. 8. He further submits that the Petitioner had offered Plot Nos.667 and 666/2936 of Khata No.674/25 situated in mouza Khuntubandha under Nayagarh Tahasil in the district of Nayagarh (Annexure-2). The Petitioner also offered Plot No.122/2821 under the said Khata. On field verification, the land offered by the Petitioner was allegedly found to be insufficient to run the distributorship. But, letter under Annexure-5/A was issued on a totally different ground stating that although the dimension of the land offered by the Petitioner, i.e.,30 X 28 Mts. is sufficient, but share of the Petitioner in the land offered is not sufficient to meet the minimum dimension required. It was also observed therein that the land is not accessible with all-weather motorable road. In the Advertisement, it was stated that the minimum requirement of the land for running the distributorship is 26.15 Mts. X 27 Mts. Thus, the land offered by the Petitioner was confirming the dimension required in the advertisement. The Petitioner had also submitted affidavit of the co-sharers regarding the family settlement allotting the land offered in favour of the father of the Petitioner. 9. Be that as it may, the letter of rejection under Annexure-5 did not spell a single word regarding ownership of the land, but the subsequent letter of rejection (Annexure-5/A) was issued during pendency of the writ petition stating that the land offered by the Petitioner did not satisfy the ownership norm. The land is recorded jointly in the name of Balakrishna Pati (father of the Petitioner) and one Balabhadra Pati (brother of the Petitioner). Thus subsequent rejection under Annexure-5/A is without jurisdiction as a rejection order under Annexure-5 had already been passed by the BPCL, which is under consideration in this writ petition. 10. Since the appointment of Opposite Party No.3 as Distributor of LPG for Nayagarh district was made during pendency of the writ petition, he has been impleaded as Opposite Party No.3 to the writ petition. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order under Annexure-5, Annexure-5/A as well as subsequent Advertisement under Annexure-5/C. 11. Mr. 10. Since the appointment of Opposite Party No.3 as Distributor of LPG for Nayagarh district was made during pendency of the writ petition, he has been impleaded as Opposite Party No.3 to the writ petition. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order under Annexure-5, Annexure-5/A as well as subsequent Advertisement under Annexure-5/C. 11. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the BPCL, referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the selection was made as per the Brochure on Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors (Annexure-B/1) to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. He referred to the following clause of the Brochure: "7.1. Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as individual The applicant should i???. ii?? iii?? iv. Fulfill Multiple dealership/distributorship norm as under: Multiple Dealership/Distributorship norms means that the applicant or any other member of 'family unit should not hold a dealership/ distributorship/RGGLV or Letter of Intent (LOI) for a dealership/distributorship/RGGLV of a PSU Oil Company ie. only one Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO dealership/LPG distributorship/RGGLV of PSU Oil Company will be allowed to a 'Family Unit. 'Family Unit' in case of married person/ applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse(s) and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/ applicant, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s). v. ???? vi. Should own a plot of land of adequate size (within 15 km from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) for construction of godown for storage of 8000 Kg of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage godown as on the date of application. As per Gas Cylinder Rules 2004, the floor area of the storage shed for storing 8000 kg LPG in cylinders should be 80 sq metres. The length of the storage shed should not be more than 1.5 times of width of storage shed. There should be clear minimum safety distance of 7 metres between storage shed and the boundary wall/ fencing. The plot of land with minimum dimension of 26.15 metres by H 27 metre is adequate. The length of the storage shed should not be more than 1.5 times of width of storage shed. There should be clear minimum safety distance of 7 metres between storage shed and the boundary wall/ fencing. The plot of land with minimum dimension of 26.15 metres by H 27 metre is adequate. It should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Canals / Drainage / Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. The land for construction of LPG godown should also meet the norms of various statutory bodies such as PWD/Highway authorities/ Town and Country Planning Department etc. In case an applicant has more than one suitable plot for construction of godown for storage of minimum 8000 Kg of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage godown as on the date of application, the details of the same can also be provided in the application. vii. Own a suitable shop of minimum size 3 metres by 4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for construction of shop of minimum size 3 metres by 4.5 metre at the advertised location or locality as specified in the advertisement as on the date of application. It should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. In case an applicant has more than one shop of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for construction of shop of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre at the advertised location or locality as specified in the advertisement as on the date of application, the details of the same can also be provided in the application." 12. It is submitted that dimension of the plots offered by the Petitioner was not in conformity with the requirements in the Brochure and advertisement. Hence, his candidature was rejected vide order under Annexure-5. But during pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner submitted a Representation for fresh consideration of his application. Accordingly, a fresh order was passed by BPCL, which is annexed as Annexure-5/A. In the order/letter under Annexure-5/A, it is clarified that the Petitioner does not have ownership over the required dimension of the land for running of distributorship of LPG. But during pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner submitted a Representation for fresh consideration of his application. Accordingly, a fresh order was passed by BPCL, which is annexed as Annexure-5/A. In the order/letter under Annexure-5/A, it is clarified that the Petitioner does not have ownership over the required dimension of the land for running of distributorship of LPG. The Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit, relied upon a sale deed alienating the property in the name of his father, but that being subsequent to his application pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 could not be taken into consideration. The representation of the Petitioner [Annexure-5(1)] was considered on the information/documents available with BPCL and fresh order under Annexure-5/A was passed. The occasion to pass the order/issue letter under Annexure-5/A arose was due to the Representation submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-5(1). Hence, no fault can be found with the Authority in passing the order under Annexure-5/A. 13. In view of the order passed under Annexure-5/A, order under Annexure-5 loses its significance as on reconsideration of candidature of the Petitioner on his representation, a fresh order was passed. While considering the Representation of the Petitioner, the letter of the Tahasildar under Annexure-A/1 was taken into consideration which discloses that the Petitioner was not the owner of the land offered that stood jointly in the name of Balakrishna Pati and Balabhadra Pati. Balabhadra Pati is not a member of the Petitioner's family as defined in the Brochure, so he cannot come under the definition of family unit. As such, the share of the Petitioner in the plots offered did not meet the required dimension for establishment of the distributorship. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 submits that pursuant to the Advertisement under Annexure-1, Opposite Party No.3 was also an applicant. After rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 was selected on drawal of lot and after successful completion of the selection process he has been appointed as distributor of LPG and is running the distributorship since the year 2017 by investing a huge amount. Although the advertisement is under challenge, but the appointment of the Opposite Party No.3 as Distributor is not under challenge in this writ petition. As such, his appointment cannot be questioned in this writ petition. 15. Although the advertisement is under challenge, but the appointment of the Opposite Party No.3 as Distributor is not under challenge in this writ petition. As such, his appointment cannot be questioned in this writ petition. 15. He further submits that the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected vide order under Annexure-5 and subsequent to that on a Representation, his candidature was reconsidered and a fresh order under Annexure-5/A has been passed. Since the appointment of Distributor is in the discretion of the BPCL, the Petitioner cannot raise any grievance to the same. After rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner, appointment of Opposite Party No.3 as Distributor of LPG for Nayagarh district has been made following due procedure as per the Brochure. Hence the writ petition merits no consideration. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 17. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has offered Plot Nos.667, 666/2936 and 122/2821 under Khata No.674/25 for construction of godown and running the distributorship of LPG. 18. Admittedly, the aforesaid plots do not stand in the name of the Petitioner. It stood in the name of Balabhadra Pati and Balakrishna Pati. As submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate Balabhadra Pati is the brother of the father of the Petitioner. There is no material on record to show that the Petitioner or his family had exclusive ownership over the land offered by the Petitioner. The Petitioner refers to an affidavit dated 23rd April, 2012, which was sworn in by Balabhadra Pati stating that in case, the Petitioner is selected as LPG Distributor, he would have no objection for construction of godown/showroom on the land offered by the Petitioner. Such an affidavit cannot take place of a deed of relinquishment. As an interest is being conveyed to the Petitioner in respect of an immovable property, it is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 19. However, the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 13th February, 2013 (Annexure-5) on the ground that the plots offered by the Petitioner do not meet the minimum required dimension for construction of the godown/showroom for running the distributorship. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. Just before filing of the writ petition, the Petitioner submitted a representation under Annexure-5(1) on 16th February, 2013 for reconsideration of his candidature. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. Just before filing of the writ petition, the Petitioner submitted a representation under Annexure-5(1) on 16th February, 2013 for reconsideration of his candidature. When the said application was under consideration, this writ petition was filed on 21st February, 2013 assailing the order under Annexure-5. The matter was taken up on 12th March, 2013 and the impugned order as aforesaid was passed. 20. The Representation of the Petitioner [Annexure-5(1)] was taken into consideration and a fresh order under Annexure-5/A was passed on 14th May, 2014. Thus, the allegation of the Petitioner that the reason of rejection of the candidature could not be supplemented by a subsequent order is devoid of any merit, as cause of action for issuance of letter under Annexure-5/A was on the basis of the representation submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-5(1). In the said representation, the Petitioner had stated that the land offered by him satisfied the required dimension of land as per the Advertisement. While considering the representation, the Authority of BPCL took assistance of the Tahasildar, Nayagarh and came to learn that the land stood jointly and the share of the Petitioner is not sufficient to meet the minimum dimension required for construction of the distributorship. As such, letter under Annexure-5/A was issued. The said letter is also under challenge in this writ petition. 21. This Court is of the considered view that no exception can be taken to the letter under Annexure-5/A alleging that it was passed during pendency of the writ petition as it was occasioned due to the Representation submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-5(1). As discussed earlier, it is clear that the Petitioner does not have sufficient share in the property to meet the minimum required dimension of land as per the Advertisement as well as Brochure and the affidavit sworn in by the co-sharer of father of the Petitioner cannot be taken as a document of relinquishment of his interest as it is not registered. 22. A submission is made by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that a sale deed was executed by said Balabhadra in favour of the Petitioner in respect of his share on 15th October, 2013. The said sale deed does not form part of the writ petition. 22. A submission is made by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that a sale deed was executed by said Balabhadra in favour of the Petitioner in respect of his share on 15th October, 2013. The said sale deed does not form part of the writ petition. Hence, this Court is not in a position to make any observation with regard to devolution of interest of the land offered in favour of Petitioner pursuant to the said sale deed. 23. Although the subsequent drawal of lottery was made under Annexure-5/C during pendency of the writ petition, but the outcome of the same is not under challenge in this writ petition, as submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3. In essence, the appointment of Opposite Party No.3 is not under challenge in this writ petition. It is, of course, observed in the interim order that any appointment of Distributor pursuant to Annexre-1 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Since the Petitioner failed to make out a case of interference with the decision of BPCL in rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner, the interim order will be of no assistance to his case. 24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Authority has committed no error in passing /issuing either the order/letter under Annexure-5 or under Annexure-5/A. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed. 26. Interim order dated 12th March, 2013 passed in Misc. Case No.4053 of 2013 stands vacated. Issue urgent certified copy of this judgment on proper application.