JUDGMENT : N.V.ANJARIA, J. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya assisted by learned advocate Mr.Manan Bhatt for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.J.F.Mehta for the respondent No.1, whereas none appears on behalf of the respondent No.2, though served with the notice of admission of the appeal. 2. By way of preferring this present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has sought to challenge judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 2.11.2018. Thereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 – original petitioner came to be allowed by setting aside the communication dated 11.11.2014 of the respondent Corporation. The Corporation was directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of awarding of LPG distributorship for Deesa-I, Banaskantha. 2.1 As per the decision reflected in communication dated 11.11.2014 impugned before learned single Judge, the appellant Corporation – original respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner for awarding of LPG distributorship, stating that on field verification upon information submitted by the petitioner, a variance in the requirements was observed, therefore the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be rejected and the amount deposited with the Corporation was forfeited under the Clause of the advertisement. 2.2 The reasons for disqualification as revealed in the decision reflected in the aforesaid communication was stated thus, “The amount shown in Bank in your application dated 08-11-2013 was not in the name of you. You have mentioned Savings Bank A/c No. - 31760765102 of SBI. In your application, on verification it was established that the A/c No. - 31760765102 in SBI, Main Branch –Deesa is actually Current A/c type and is in the name of M/s. H K Traders, Deesa and do not comply with the requirements as per Dealer Selection Guidelines.” 3. Briefly stated, on 30.9.2013, advertisement was issued by the respondent Corporation inviting applications for awarding of LPG distribution, in which the area was Deesa-I and Deesa-II. The petitioner applied for both the categories. When the draw was taken out, the petitioner was qualified for selection of LPG distributorship for Deesa-I. On 7.6.2014, the appellant Corporation informed the petitioner that the petitioner was qualified in draw for selection. The petitioner was asked to give details including identity proof, etc. which were supplied by the petitioner and also deposited Rs.25,000/- as per the requirement of the Clause 15. The petitioner was asked to give details including identity proof, etc. which were supplied by the petitioner and also deposited Rs.25,000/- as per the requirement of the Clause 15. 3.1 The grievance of the petitioner was that without issuing show-cause notice, the Corporation cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. The grounds advanced was that the amount of balance shown by the petitioner in the bank account was not in saving account but in the current account and that it was in the name of M/s.H.K.Traders. The application form contained general instructions relating to providing of certain information by the aspirants for the distributorship. The instructions were based on the guidelines of selection of the regular LPG distributorship. It included requirement of having specified amount in the bank account. 3.2 The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was based on Clause 6.1 (vi) of the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG distributorship, August, 2013, which reads as under, “(vi) Have minimum total amount of Rs. 15 lakhs for Urban Markets and Rs. 10 lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural Markets respectively as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). This amount is to be arrived at by adding amount in Savings Bank accounts in Scheduled Bank/Post Office, free and un-encumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organization/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender Value of Life Insurance policies in the name of Applicant or family members of the 'Family Unit' of the Applicant as defined above. In case of locations reserved under 'SC/ST/category, minimum total amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for Urban Markets and Rs.2.5 lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural Markets respectively should be available as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any)” 4. Learned senior advocate for the appellant highlighted the said Clause 6.1(vi) which required the minimum balance in the bank account of the applicant to submit that the criteria was not fulfilled. It was submitted that the details which the respondent – petitioner offered was of current account with balance of Rs.10 lakhs, whereas the requirement was to have the savings account. It was submitted that the details which the respondent – petitioner offered was of current account with balance of Rs.10 lakhs, whereas the requirement was to have the savings account. It was submitted that it was clearly indicated in the advertisement that the amount in the savings account in the Schedule Bank was the requirement to be fulfilled. 4.1 It was next submitted that the candidates were even required to give declaration that the eligibility for the regular LPG distributorship will be decided on verification and if the company finds that the information provided was incorrect, the candidature was liable to be cancelled. It was next submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the condition in question is incorporated in the advertisement which has to be adhered to and the eligibility has to be decided by strictly complying it and that no relaxation or deviation could be made for the petitioner. 4.1.1 It was submitted that such condition cannot be subjected to judicial review, and that it would amount to reviewing the administrative action. It was submitted that it was the responsibility of the applicant to supply the correct information, and in absence, his candidature was liable to be rejected. It was submitted that the authority floating the tender was best judge and the interference of the court in such cases, should be minimal. 4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent – original petitioner submitted that the account which was offered, belonged to the proprietory firm run by the petitioner. It was submitted that Clause 6.1(vi) speaks of the balance in the savings account and that the Clause could be said to have been complied with when the availability of the amount was shown by the applicant. It was submitted that though the said clause mentioned the savings account, the object could be said to have been achieved and the kind of bank account rendered the directory requirement. Learned advocate for the respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Richa Mishra Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. [ (2016) 4 SCC 179 ], to emphasis that purposive interpretation should be attached to condition 6.1(vi). 4.3 Learned single Judge noted to observe that the petitioner had tendered requisite documents and also furnished demand draft of Rs.25,000/- as required. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. [ (2016) 4 SCC 179 ], to emphasis that purposive interpretation should be attached to condition 6.1(vi). 4.3 Learned single Judge noted to observe that the petitioner had tendered requisite documents and also furnished demand draft of Rs.25,000/- as required. The criteria in aforesaid Clause 6.1(vi) of the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG distributorship was considered. After referring to the various decisions of the Supreme Court, learned single Judge observed that the purpose of aforesaid condition in 6.1(vi) was to ensure the financial stability. It was held that the said condition should be read with purposive intent. It weighed with the learned single Judge that the account was of M/s. H.K.Traders – the proprietory firm run by the petitioner himself. Learned single Judge thereafter observe that though it was not a savings account but current account with sufficient balance, it would amount to fulfilling in essence, the condition for awarding dealership. 4.4 Learned single Judge observed thus in para 32.1 to highlight the actual position in that regard. “It is, thus, clear that requirement of clause 6(vi) of Brochure is of Rs. 10 lakhs for Urban Rural and Rural markets as a closing balance on the date of submission of the application as specified in the advertisement. This amount, of course, was required by adding even the amount if was lying in savings bank account of a Scheduled Bank. Admittedly, on verification it was certified by the State Bank of India that Account No.31760765102 is of H.K.Traders and it is also mentioned that Shri Kiritkumar Chauhan is the proprietor of the firm M/s. H.K. Traders and that he has been maintaining the Current-Account which showed the credit balance of Rs.10,04,131/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs four thousand one hundred thirty one only). This communication dated 17.11.2014 had led to the impugned communication of cancelling the application of the petitioner where the petitioner is said to have not fulfilled the criteria. It is to be noted that the bank account, which has been given is of the proprietary firm and the distributorship is in the individual name. This communication dated 17.11.2014 had led to the impugned communication of cancelling the application of the petitioner where the petitioner is said to have not fulfilled the criteria. It is to be noted that the bank account, which has been given is of the proprietary firm and the distributorship is in the individual name. The requirement is of savings account of an individual, whereas the petitioner as a proprietor of M/s. H.K. Traders, was having current account.” 4.5 The view of learned single Judge has to be countenanced that the proprietor and proprietory firm are not different entities in eye of law, therefore when the bank balance is available in the account of proprietory firm, it remains in direct control of the proprietor himself. Merely because the account was current account in which the balance was shown, it would not disqualify the petitioner, according to learned single Judge. 4.6 Applying a purpose oriented construction, learned single Judge recorded in para 32.2, “The proprietor and the proprietary firm not being different and separate in the eyes of law that objection would have no leg to stand under the law. Again, although condition of having balance in saving account is not being fulfilled in literal sense, the purposive interpretation of the terms of contract shall need to be regarded. It is to be noted that requisite condition of paragraph 6.1(vi) requires closing balance on the last date for submission of application. The amount was to be maintained even by adding the amount undertakings KVP/NSC scheduled of listing companies, mutual funds, LIC etc. in the name of the applicant or family members of the family unit. What is ensured is the financial capabilities of the person, who is being awarded the dealership. Thus, the requirement of amount of savings account cannot be said to be such an essential condition that the money exists in the current account of the proprietary firm owned by the applicant himself would entitle the respondent to defeat his right by cancelling his candidature. One can understand that there was no balance or he had maneuvered the figure or had shown the balance from such account which did not fall under the criteria of family etc. One can understand that there was no balance or he had maneuvered the figure or had shown the balance from such account which did not fall under the criteria of family etc. As can be noticed the essential difference between the savings account and current account is that the savings account as nomenclatured is meant for savings and not to be operated more than 3 to 5 times in a month, whereas current account ordinarily is meant for businessman, corporates, traders, designed to facilitate regular transactions. Banks generally provide 4% to 6% interest on savings accounts, whereas, on current account there is no interest given.” 5. While this court considered the factual controversy and the rival submissions canvassed, learned advocate for the respondent could rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors. which was Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2018 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9768 of 2015 dated 4.5.2018. 5.1 The facts involved in the Jitendra Choudhary (supra) were akin to the controversy involved of this case and similar. The said order may be reproduced herein below for the complete idea and the controversy involved therein, to further notice that the decision would hold good to address the present facts. “The appellant was short-listed out of the eligible candidates for grant of a retail outlet (LPG Distributorship). In the draw of lots held the appellant succeeded. Prior to grant of the work order, in the course of the field verification made by the respondents, it transpired that the appellant though had the requisite amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) in deposit in the Bank the same was in a Current Account and not in the Savings Account, as stipulated in the NIT. On the aforesaid ground, the work order was not issued and the draw of lot was cancelled. Aggrieved, the High Court of Rajasthan was moved and against the order dismissing the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1461 of 2014 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6355 of 2014 this appeal has been filed. On the aforesaid ground, the work order was not issued and the draw of lot was cancelled. Aggrieved, the High Court of Rajasthan was moved and against the order dismissing the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1461 of 2014 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6355 of 2014 this appeal has been filed. Taking into account the fact that the appellant was an eligible short-listed candidate who succeeded in the draw of lot and also had the requisite amount available in the Bank we are not inclined to go into the question as to whether the stipulation with regard to the nature of the bank account i.e. Savings Account/Current Account is a mandatory or directory condition of the tender. Instead, having regard to the facts as stated above we are of the view that the decision of the respondents to cancel the draw of lot ought to be interfered with. Consequently, we set aside the said decision and direct the respondents to proceed further in the matter. All questions of law are kept open. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Consequently, all pending applications are disposed of.” 5.2 While it is true that in the aforesaid order it is observed by the Supreme Court that all questions of law are kept open, it could be immediately noticed that the facts involved therein tend to be identical. The Supreme Court did not go into the aspect whether the requirement regarding bank account balance is mandatory or directive. It emphasized that if the requisite amount is available in the bank account. 5.3 With the same emphasizes on the said aspect of availability of requisite balance in proprietory firm’s account, this court is inclined to adopt the reasoning as well as the decision of the Supreme Court inasmuch as it rests on the same facts. It would be trite to observe that the ultimate purpose of the condition and the nature whether particular amount is required in the bank account is to ensure that the applicant possesses financial capacity that he is financially sound with such prescribed amount to be at its command. When in the current account of the petitioner’s proprietory firm, the amount was maintained and the petitioner was proprietor of the firm, it was his amount at his disposal. The fund belongs to the proprietor himself. Financial sound can be said to be established to make good the condition. When in the current account of the petitioner’s proprietory firm, the amount was maintained and the petitioner was proprietor of the firm, it was his amount at his disposal. The fund belongs to the proprietor himself. Financial sound can be said to be established to make good the condition. 6. Therefore, without going into any other aspect in light of the decision of the Supreme Court and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order of learned single Judge deserves to be upheld. It is accordingly upheld with a direction that the respondent – petitioner shall maintain the amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the account. No interference in the judgment and order of learned single Judge is called for. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the Appeal, the Civil Application will not survive. It is accordingly disposed of.