1 2026:CGHC:11658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1455 of 2014  Smt. Ushalata Agrawal W/o Shri Umesh Agrawal Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Barpali, Post & PS Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Through Its Senior Regional Manager, Raipur LPG Regional Office, LPG Bottling Plant, Post And PS Mandir Hasaud Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. Senior Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Raipur LPG Regional Office LPG Bottling Plant, Post And P.S. Mandir Hasaud Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Nilesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Babulal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o PO Barpali Via Bhaisma Tahsil Kartala P.S. Urga District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1684 of 2015  Nilesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Babu Lal Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Barpali, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Senior Regional Manager, Raipur, L.P.G. Regional Office, L.P.G. Bottling Plant, P.O. And P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Senior Regional Manager, Raipur L.P.G. Regional Office, L.P.G. Bottling Plant, P.O. And P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Tehsildar, Barpali, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Usha Lata Agrawal, W/o Umesh Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Barpali, P.O. And P.S. Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.12 15:47:52 +0530 2 For Petitioner/s : None. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.03 .2026 1. The petitioners, participated in selection of LPG distributor under Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) scheme. An advertisement was issued on 18.05.2013 for appointment/selection of RGGLV. Both the petitioners submitted their application for Barpali District Korba. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected. Earlier, Smt. Ushalata Agrawal had preferred WPC No. 179 of 2014, against order of rejection of her candidature and said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2014. She preferred WA No. 177/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2014 with a direction to the respondents No. 1 & 2 herein to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. Smt. Usha Lata Agrawal made a representation on 28.04.2014 and it was rejected vide order dated 31.05.2014. 2. The candidature of the petitioner Nilesh Kumar Agrawal was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.06.2015. • Thus, both these petitions have been preferred against rejection of candidature. 3. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate would contend that a proposal was sent to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to prepare single selection guidelines covering all types of distributorships. He would submit that pursuant to that proposal, guidelines were framed in the month of July, 2016. He would refer introduction part of guidelines of 2016, wherein, it is advised to cancel RGGLV locations for which draw were not held. He would further submit that as draw were not held with regard to location Barpali, 3 Korba(location involved in these petitions), therefore, the location has been treated canceled. It is also argued that as these petitions remained pending, therefore, specific order of cancellation has not been issued. It is submitted that these petitions deserve to be dismissed in light of subsequent development. 4. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Sharma. 5. I have heard Mr. Sharma and perused the guidelines of 2016. 6. It is apparent from the documents annexed along with the writ petition that after rejection of candidature of the petitioners no draw has been held and after framing of the new guidelines, distributorship cannot be granted to the petitioners pursuant to old guidelines, which were framed in the year 2009- 10-12. The Ministry has advised to pass specific order with regard to cancellation of RGGLV selections for which draw were not held but due to pendency of these petitions, specific order of cancellation has not been passed. 7. Taking into consideration the subsequent developments and specific provisions made in the guidelines of July, 2016, Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, I am not inclined to keep these matters pending, accordingly, these petitions are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant