CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15534 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 03, 2011 Harpreet Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS Indian Oil Corporation, Mumbai and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the allotment of LPG Distributionship at Khanauri, District Sangrur in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner claims that she was wrongly allocated 18.4 marks instead of 35 in the capacity to provide finance and 12 marks instead of 15 in the criteria of educational qualification. The petitioner, therefore, pleads that her claim was wrongly and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15534 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: illegally rejected. Advertisement for LPG Distributionship at the site noticed above was issued on 18.9.2006. The petitioner submitted an application on 29.11.2006. The interview date was fixed for 12.3.2009 but it was postponed in view of stay granted by this Court. Later the petitioner was called for interview on 14.7.2009. Based on the documents submitted by the petitioner, she was awarded 18.4 marks in the criteria to provide finance and 12 marks for the educational qualification. As per the petitioner, she was entitled to 35 marks in capacity to provide finance against 18.4 as awarded and 15 marks for educational qualification against 12 marks as awarded to her. In response to notice, the respondent-Corporation as well as private respondents have filed separate replies. The respondent- Corporation has raised preliminary objection, challenging the locus of the petitioner to file this writ petition. It is pleaded that this Court may not embark upon doing fresh process of selection as that would be beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. In this regard, reference is made to the case of DA Slounke Vs. B.S.Mahajan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434. Reference is also made to observations made by this Court in M/s Shree Gomukh Marketing Private Limited Versus Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited, Panipat and another in Civil Writ Petition No.15681 of 2007, dated 16.9.2008, where this Court has observed that while exercising power of judicial review, the Court will not examine the marks given to each candidate for allotment of a commercial venture. It is also observed that it is for the oil company to see its business interest and to award letter of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15534 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: intent keeping in view its policy. On merits, the pleas of the petitioner are denied being wrong. It is pointed out that family unit has been defined in Para 2 of the advertisement issued on 18.9.2006. The petitioner, being married, the term `family' in her case would comprise of she herself, her spouse and unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). Accordingly, it is stated that only those funds claimed under Column 13(a) and 13(b) of the application form submitted by the petitioner can be taken into consideration as per the definition of family unit. It means that only those funds can be considered for assessment, which are in the name of the petitioner and her spouse. It is stated that the Evaluation Committee has accordingly referred to the documents as per the rules and have considered the accounts standing in the name of the petitioner and her husband, which were `4,01,0237/- and, thus, gave her 4 marks under the sub-head `financially sound funds'. The petitioner was given 7 marks under the sub-head of `ability to arrange loan' on the basis of a letter from Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioner was given 0 mark under the sub-head of `assets' as she has claimed no assets under column 13 (c) of the application in her name or in the name of her spouse. All the assets mentioned are in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh and family, who do not fall within the definition of family as per the advertisement. The petitioner was given full 5 marks under the sub- head of `income' by considering her income and that of her spouse. Similarly, the respondents would point out that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner is one issued by Apex CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15534 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: Computer Education, which is not registered with the Government. No details have been mentioned in the certificate in this regard. The petitioner accordingly was awarded 12 marks correctly since she was Post-Graduate from Punjabi University. The petitioner has not filed any replication to rebut the pleadings made in the reply. The counsel also could not make any meaningful submission against the justification given by the respondents in making the assessment of the petitioner in various criterion. The assessment has been fairly and legally made by the respondents. Otherwise also, there is hardly any scope for interference by writ court in such like matters, as the scope of judicial review is limited. In this regard, the detailed observations made by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2096 of 2009 (Bharat Gupta Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another),, decided on 22.3.2011, may be relevant:- “The principle of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favourtism. There are, however, inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy. They, thus, are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15534 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision- making process itself. It is, thus, different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal, the court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal. Since the power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, the court cannot substitute its own decision. This apart, the court is hardly equipped to do so and it would not be desirable also. Where the selection or rejection is arbitrary, certainly the court would interfere. It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard or with zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substitute its judgment for that of the administrator. Reference in this regard can be made to Nottinghamshire County Council Versus Secretary of State for the Environment & Others, (1986) 1 All ER 199. This view is followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651. That being the scope of judicial review in such like matters, no case for interference certainly is made out.” There is no infirmity noticed in the decision making process, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 18, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE