IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.203 of 2006 Sangeeta Singh, W/o Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, resident of Chandra Niwas, Kyastha Tola, P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa .........Appellant Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation , Marketing Division, Regional, through its General Manager, Bihar Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna . 2. The General Manager, Bihar Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna 3. The Dealer Selection Committee, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 4. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 5. The Co-ordinator, Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 6. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Shashidhar Singh, resident of Jagdamba Petroleum, Sahasra Basti District Saharsa 7. Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Mahendra Narayan Singh, resident of Supaul, P.S and District Supaul 8. Sri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o late Shankar Lal Agrawal, resident of Supaul, P.S and District Supaul .........Respondents ----------------- For the appellant: Mr. Binod Kr. Kanth, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kr. Upadhaya, Advocate For the respondent (IOC.): Mr. K. D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the respondent no.6: Mr. Krishna Kr. Singh, Advocate For the respondent no.7: Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate ----------- 13 10-12-2010 Heard the parties. This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 8-2-2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ petition bearing CWJC no. 9605/2004 preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The writ court in the impugned order has noticed that the appellant had challenged the select list prepared by the Indian Oil Corporation 2 pursuant to an advertisement which is said to be dated 29-2-2004. According to the appellant the selection process was vitiated and required interference of this court but the writ court dismissed the writ petition summarily on the ground that decision was commercial decision which should not be interfered by this court. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised all the grounds raised before the writ court inviting us to hold that the select list should be quashed because of irregularities in the selection process. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of these submissions in view of a fair stand taken by Mr. Chatterji, learned Senior counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. He has placed before us the findings given by a team of two members constituting a High Power Committee which had looked into selection process in question relating to grant of licence for retail vending of LPG at Supaul. As per the findings certain irregularities were found in the selection process and the main irregularity noticed was in the act of the Dealer Selection Committee taking cognizance of documents submitted at the time of 3 interview instead restricting the evaluation on the basis of documents submitted at the time of application. Learned counsel for the Corporation has taken a stand that in view of findings of the High Power Committee under the scheme of the Corporation candidates have to be called for re-interview so that irregularities noticed by the High Power Committee are avoided and fresh evaluation is done as per policy decision and guidelines of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7, Niraj Kumar Singh, has submitted that the selection process was indeed erroneous but subsequent findings of the High Power Committee are in favour of placing of respondent no.7 as number one candidate in the select list. It goes without saying that the High Power Committee cannot be substituted in place of the Dealer Selection Committee and, therefore, re-interview as per established schemes and policy is required to be held. Re-interview by Dealer Selection Committee should be held properly and in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably, within three months. 4 In the result, the order under appeal is modified and substituted by this order. The appeal stands disposed of. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)