Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for cancellation of the selection of respondent No. 6 as LPG Dealer in respect of the location against serial No. 159 of the publication/advertisement dated 24th March, 2013. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in. response to the advertisement published in daily newspaper namely 'Anandabazar Patrika' on 24th May, 2013 for appointment of LPG gas distributor under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (in short hereinafter referred to as RGG LV Scheme). Mr. Basu further submits that Clause 3(h) of the said publication dated 24th May, 2013 narrates some eligibility criteria of the applicant which provides as follows: "(i) The applicant should own a plot of land having a minimum dimension of 21 metre into 26 metre upon which a godown shall be built for storing five thousand KG LPG. (ii) The location of the said plot of the land should be approachable to the main road. (iii) The said plot should be plain and no canal/nullah should flow from the said plot of the land and the land should be free from any overhead telephone or electricity lines failing which the application shall be rejected and the applicant shall not be entitled to the selection process."
(2.) Mr. Basu further submits that since the petitioner owns a plot of land more than required dimension of 21 metre into 26 metre at Dag No. 7 under Mouza Mugkalayan without any canal, nullah and free from any overhead telephone or electricity lines over the plot of land and adjacent to 85 feet wide road, therefore, the petitioner's application should have been considered by the respondent authority. Mr. Basu further contends that apart from petitioner there was only one candidate i.e. the private respondent No. 6. Therefore, draw was conducted by the company through independent person. In the draw it is found that the respondent No. 6 has been selected. Mr. Basu further contends though the respondent No. 6 was selected but his godown was not through a motorable and approachable road which was one of the criteria for selection in the advertisement dated 24th May, 2013. In support of his contention Mr. Basu draws my attention at page 41 of the inspection report annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition used by the oil company. Some excerpts of the page 41 is quoted below: "Land was physically verified by Committee Member along with Surveyor - Mr. Sambhu Mallick. Land found to be suitable but free accessibility to subject land through all weather motorable approach roads posed a problem."
(3.) During verification on 28.08.2014, it was found that public approach road to land exists but not as per requirement. WB Geographical Map showcased a public road but the same was not present in reality. Hence, in order to check whether a higher capacity vehicle can move on the available approach road, it was desired by FVC to arrange for a higher capacity vehicle. However, at the time of FVC on 28.08.2014, the applicant denied movement of such higher capacity vehicle on the available approach road.";