Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 11.7.14 issued by the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Bikaner, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Nohar, stands rejected on the ground that the amount mentioned in application form under column 11 in the Saving Bank Account in Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited is not in conformity with clause No. 6.1 of the Brochure for selection of Regular LPG Distributorship, inasmuch as, the said Bank is not a Scheduled Bank.
(2.) THE oil companies issued an advertisement dated 21.9.13 for allotment of LPG Distributorship for various locations in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner applied for allotment of Distributorship for location Nohar. Vide communication dated 1.2.14, issued by the Territory Manager, BPCL, Bikaner, the petitioner was informed that he has qualified for draw for award of LPG Distributorship. The draw was conducted on 25.2.14 wherein the petitioner was selected and therefore, vide communication dated 26.2.14, the petitioner was advised to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - through a demand draft in favour of BPCL payable at Bikaner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner tendered the demand draft of Rs. 25,000/ - on 28.2.14. However, vide order impugned dated 11.7.14, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent -BPCL on the ground that amount mentioned in the application preferred by the petitioner in the Saving Bank Account in Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited does not satisfy the requirement in terms of clause 6.1 of the Brochure for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship inasmuch as, the said Bank is not a Scheduled Bank. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Mini Bank Deidas is operating the banking business under the Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, which is engaged in banking business under the license issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Hanumangarh is a member of State Cooperative Bank Limited which is a Scheduled Bank and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in terms of clause 6.1 of the Brochure, is ex facie erroneous.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited may be associated with the Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank, which is affiliated to Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank but then, the fact remains that the Mini Bank cannot be considered to be a Scheduled Bank and therefore, the candidature of the petitioner who does not fulfill the eligibility criteria in terms of clause 6.1 of the Brochure has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the guidelines governing the process of selection has to be strictly followed and if the norms of eligibility are not satisfied, the candidature of the applicant is bound to be rejected. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Shyam Sunder" (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 390/12, decided on 4.3.13).;