IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17774 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.03.2011 Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 10.10.2009 vide which representation filed by him in regard to his non-selection of LPG distributorship and for challenging the grant thereof to respondent No. 4 has been dismissed. The short ground of attack as raised by the petitioner is that his claim has been primarily rejected on the ground that the properties mentioned in the valuation report are not matching with the khewat/khata number of the properties for which the sale deeds were enclosed. The petitioner infact has been given 'zero' marks under this head and have the grievance. The requirement of noticing the fact in detail may not therefore be essential to decide this challenge on this single ground. It is conceded on behalf of the petitioner that he did not mention khasra number and had only given description of the land purchased Civil Writ Petition No. 17774 of 2009 -2- by him by mentioning khewat and khatoni number. The counsel would submit that khewat and khatoni number had undergone a change to an extent that there may have been difficulty in co-relating the evaluation of the sale deeds supplied by the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent-Corporation has placed before me original record to show that the sale deeds are from village Khamano Kalan whereas the valuation report attached was of land in village Shaheedgarh. On this ground and on account of difficulty faced by the assessing team in co-relating the land valuation report supplied by the petitioner, that the Committee had decided to award 'zero' marks to the petitioner in the para making capability to provide finances. This action taken does not appear to be arbitrary and is as per norms, which are usually followed. Whatever was placed before the Committee was taken into consideration and the Committee was justified in observing that the land could not be co-related with the valuation report either because of difference in the name of village or because of the fact that khasra number of the land had not been given. This action is well informed by reasons and appears just, fair and reasonable in making assessment. Reference can be made to decisions in the cases of M/s Shree Gomukh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Panipat in CWP No. 15681 of 2007, Sachin Vs. Union of India and others in CWP No. 12511 of 2009, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc. AIR 1990 SC 434, Chinmoy Sarkar and etc. v. Md. Shaniat Hossain and etc. AIR 1990 Cal. 412 and Abhay Singh Mankotia v. Union of India, 1990 (1) PLR 635, where this court has Civil Writ Petition No. 17774 of 2009 -3- laid down some parameter for exercise power of judicial review in such like cases. It is noticed that power of judicial review cannot be examined as to how much marks are to be given to candidate. It is noted that issue is of allotment of a commercial venture i.e. a retail outlet. It is primary job of the companies to see its business interest and to award Letter of Intent keeping in view its policies. Since there is no allegation of any malafides seen in this case, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in exercise of writ petition. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 22, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE