IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4890 of 2011 ----------- Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Shri Jagadish Singh, resident of village Hatta, P.O. and P.S. Chenari, District Rohtas … Petitioner Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Chairman, G-9, Ali Yawar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), Bombay-400051. 2. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan (5th Floor), Dakbunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Retail Sales ), Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan (5th Floor), Dakbunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. 4. The Senior Divisional (Retail) Manager, Patna Division Office, General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation , 3-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna-800001. 5. The Land Evaluation Committee, Patna Division Office, Indian Oil Corporation, 3-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road , Patna-800001. 6. Mithlesh Kumar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, resident of village Majhhauria, P.S. Buxar, District Buxar. …. Respondents ------- Fore the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Advocate For the I.O.C. : M/s Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate and Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate ------- 04/ 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Evaluation chart/merit panel dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure 2) of candidates appeared in the interview for selection of retail outlet dealers in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.08.2009 for the location “Chilhari” ( within 2 K.M. from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar on Right Hand Side on N.H. 84) and also challenging letter dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure 4) issued by the Sr. Divisional ( Retail Sales ) Manager, Patna Division Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Patna (respondent no.4), by which the 2 complaint of the petitioner dated 30.07.2010 was rejected and also for directing the respondents to award full marks to the petitioner against capability to provide lands as it is within 2 K.M. from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar on right side of N.H. 84 for the said location. 3. It is not in dispute that the notice inviting offer for appointment of retail outlet dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity ) was issued on 24.08.2009 for various locations in the State of Bihar including serial no.33, which was for location “Chilhari ( within 2 K.M. from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar on R.H.S. on N.H. 84)”, which was for open category. 4. It transpires that the petitioner applied along with other applicants and they were called for interview held on 20.07.2010, in which the petitioner and other candidates obtained `0’ marks for the site, which was offered by them for opening the said outlet. Against the said marking, the petitioner filed a complaint on 30.07.2010 (Annexure 3), which was rejected by the authorities vide letters dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure 4) and 09.02.2011 (Annexure 5) on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner was situated outside the revenue location of Chilhari. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt his land is beyond the revenue village of chilhari, but it is 1.3 K.M. (within 2 K.M. ) from the said Hospital towards Buxar on right side of N.H. 84. He further states that when a location is mentioned, it 3 shall include the adjacent areas also, which come under the purview of the advertisement. In this regard, he relies upon an investigation report dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure 8), which he received under the Right to Information, in which it was specifically found that the revenue village Chilhari was less than 2 K.M. from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar and the petitioner’s land was merely 1.3 K.Ms. from the said Pratap Sagar Hospital. Hence considering the land up to 2 K.Ms. from Pratap Sagar Hospital will cause opening of retail outlet at a site, which will not be in Chilhari. 6. In the said circumstances, the authorities of the Corporation had noted on 23.12.2010 (Annexure 9) that they were of the view that the plot offered within Chilhari only should be considered and plot offered beyond Chilhari (even on the same stretch i.e. within 2KM from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar on RHS on NH 84), should not be considered for development of retail outlet at any location beyond Chilhari and in their view the authority has rightly allotted `0’ marks to the petitioner, whose land did not fall under location called “ Chilhari “. 7. It is not in dispute that Chilhari is a revenue village and its boundaries are well defined. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s land was not within the revenue location of Chilhari. Hence on that ground, the land offered by the petitioner was not proper, but confusion was created in the notice inviting offer dated 24.08.2009 by mentioning “Chilhari ( within 2 k.M. from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar on R.H.S. on N.H. 84)”. It may be 4 noted that when a location is provided, it has to be as per revenue records and only that can be the basis of consideration. 8. In the said circumstances, the authorities were quite justified in taking impugned steps and passing the impugned orders as a fresh advertisement was required to be published with respect to the revenue location of Chilhari cancelling the earlier advertisement with respect to Chilhari. In view of the fact that the authorities in their note dated 23.12.2010(Annexure 9) had specifically stated that they were of the view that plot offered within Chilhari only should be considered, plot offered beyond Chilhari, even if it is . within 2 K.M. from Pratap Sagar Hospital towards Buxar on R.H.S. on N.H. 84 should not be considered for development of retail outlet at any location beyond revenue mauza Chilhari. 9. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, thus, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )