CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 09 ,2011 Rai Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi 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. Munish Jolly, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for HPCL. Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was applicant for allotment of retail outlet, has challenged the communication dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure P-17) and the result of evaluation made on 16.12.2009 (Annexure P- 6). Vide Annexure P-17, the petitioner was informed that the land offered by him was located in Village Ding whereas the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: advertisement was for location in Village Ding Mandi. As per the investigation report, it was advised that in the revenue records there was no location by the name of `Ding Mandi' but name of Village Ding is there, which falls in the revenue estate of District Sirsa. Accordingly, no marks were awarded to him for location. On this basis, all the candidates had been awarded 0 marks in the criteria of capacity to provide infrastructure. None of the applicants, thus, could obtain the minimum qualifying marks. On this basis, the respondents have taken a decision to re-advertise the location, for which the petitioner has not even made any application. Despite this position, the petitioner insisted on making submissions and accordingly the counsel have been heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that the technical team, which had inspected the site offered by him had given him 34 marks out of 35. The site offered by respondent No.5 was outrightly rejected as it did not fall in the area as per the advertisement. It is alleged that respondent No.5 is a real brother-in-law of respondent No.4, who is Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. It is his influence, which, as per the petitioner led to this situation. The petitioner, though eligible, was made ineligible by giving him 0 marks under the heading of land and infrastructure. He accordingly pleads that whole action of the respondents was actuated with malice and so should be set-aside. In fact, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No.8628 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his complaint and take appropriate decision as per law. Annexure P-17 was thereafter CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: passed, pursuant to these directions. In the reply filed, the respondents have stated that the land offered by the petitioner located at Village Ding and not in Village Ding Mandi. It is stated otherwise that there was an inadvertent error in mentioning the name of one of the locations. The location at Sr.No.44, as per the advertisement was Village Ding Mandi on MDR/ODR road, District Sirsa. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Corporation that there was no such location called Ding Mandi and so, the site has been re-advertised on 30.4.2010, where the petitioner had not filed any application. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset was required to explain as to the nature of relief that can be granted to him in the background that the respondents had decided to re- advertise the site. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P-17, where justification has been given for assessing the petitioner with 0 mark in the criteria of capacity to provide infrastructure. The Court may have appropriately examined the decision making process if the site had been allotted to any applicant. The respondents have cancelled the location as advertised. Even if the communication, Annexure P-17, is set-aside, it would not lead to any effective relief to the petitioner. Site has been cancelled and fresh site is advertised. Evaluation has now to be made depending upon fresh applications. It may need a notice that the petitioner has not challenged the action of the respondents in cancelling the site as advertised or for issuing fresh advertisement for site as made. The petitioner has prayed for allotment in his favour for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: the site which is no more under consideration. In the absence of challenge to the new advertisement, no effective relief is possible. In fact, it is for the respondents to withdraw any site and no one can have legal right to insist that a retail outlet be set up at a particular site. It is for the respondent-Corporation to decide about location for retail outlet. It is a commercial venture and it would be for the Corporation to set up retail outlet at a particular place or to withdraw the same. No one can have a right to ask the respondents to set up retail outlet at a particular site. If for any reason, the respondent- Corporation decides to cancel the site advertised even after considering the case of those who had applied, when none of the candidates was found eligible or qualified for allotment, this Court would have hardly any scope to interfere in such matters. After all, it is the business interest of the respondent-Corporation and it is for the Corporation to decide where it would like to have any retail outlet. This apart, my attention has also been drawn to some of the judgments to urge that it is not the functions of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize relative merits of the candidates (see DA Slounke Vs.B.S.Mahajan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434). This Court in Smt.Monika Gupta Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2010 (5) SCALE 643, had upheld the action of the Selection Committee in awarding 0 mark to a candidate under heading `infrastructure', when the candidate had neither given any indication in the application form about availability of land for godown or showroom. In M/s Shree Gomukh Marketing Private Limited Versus Hindustan CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: Petroleum Company Limited, Panipat and another in Civil Writ Petition No.15681 of 2007, dated 16.9.2008, it is held that the Courts, while exercising power of judicial review in the matter of allotment of petrol pump, do not examine the marks given to each candidate for allotment of commercial venture. A mere power to choose, can not be termed as arbitrary. Again 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, while commenting upon principles governing the judicial review, has observed as under:- “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 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: 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.” In view of the above, there is neither much scope of interference in exercise of judicial review in such like matters nor there is any infirmity revealed in the decision making process, which may call for any interference. Once the respondent-Corporation has decided to cancel the advertisement, this Court can not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the Corporation. The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that this action has been taken to favour respondent No.5 appears to be little farfetched. Easy way to favour respondent No.5 was to give him marks while evaluating his site. The reasons given by respondent-Corporation to re-advertise the site appear justified. The sites are advertised on the basis of revenue CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 :{ 7 }: record. Any site which is advertised, ignoring the revenue record, may lead to misleading the public at large, who may be desirous of applying. Action of the respondent-Corporation in carrying out the correction appears to be genuine and justified. The petitioner was at liberty to apply for the site at the re-advertised place, which he did not do. This Court can not issue any direction for the respondent- Corporation to set up a retail outlet at the site earlier advertised, even if for the sake of argument, it is found to be due to the reasons other than those disclosed in the reply. The writ court would not be in any competent position to insist the Corporation to set up a retail outlet at a place earlier advertised, in case it has chosen to re-advertise the same at a place, which may be different than the earlier one. In my view, the petitioner is not espousing a justiciable or justifiable cause. No case for invoking writ jurisdiction, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 09,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE