CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 25 ,2011 Miss Simran Gheer .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India 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. V. K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is contesting the allotment of petrol pump site at Karnal City on by-pass known as Meerut Road on the ground that the selected candidate respondent No.4 was wrongly awarded marks in an illegal manner, ignoring the criteria contained in the brochure. An advertisement for appointment of retail outlet of dealership at the site mentioned above was issued on 20.7.2007. This outlet was meant for woman candidate only. Petitioner as well CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: as respondent No.4 applied for the allotment. As per the petitioner, for assessing the merits of the candidates, the evaluation was required to be done on the basis of mandatory criteria, as was mentioned in the advertisement. Accordingly, 35 marks were fixed for capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities whereas 25 marks were meant for capability to provide finance. Education qualification, capabilities to generate business, age, experience, business ability/acumen and personality carried 15, 10, 4, 4, 5 and 2 marks respectively. The petitioner would make reference to the definition of a family, which has been provided and for the purpose of married applicant, the definition of family would comprise of spouse, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughters(s). In case of unmarried applicant, the family is defined as his/her unmarried brother(s)/ unmarried sister(s) and parents. The petitioner claims to have submitted her documents regarding her capacity to provide finance and land owned by her father. This was duly supported by an affidavit executed by father of the petitioner. On the basis of documents annexed, the petitioner was called for interview on 28.10.2007. Referring to the case of selected candidate, respondent No.4, the petitioner would point out that she was married at the time of submission of the application. Her father- in-law was a voter in the list of Bhagra Constituency, where village Ahata Gosgarh fell. Her husband was stated to be serving in the Air Force and having income of `10,000/- per month. This information was submitted by the private respondent while submitting an application for getting ration card made in the year 2005. Respondent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: No.4 was married prior to issuance of advertisement. It is stated that neither respondent No.4 nor her husband or unmarried son or unmarried daughter has any land at Karnal, where the retail outlet was proposed. The Interview Committee awarded marks and gave 67.25% marks to respondent No.4. She was given 25 marks for capability to provide land and infrastructure. The petitioner would aver that these marks were wrongly granted to her and if these are ignored, then the petitioner, who was second in merit with 55.75% marks would become entitled and eligible for grant of the retail outlet. Her grievance also is that marks of finance capability have not been awarded to the petitioner correctly. The petitioner had submitted representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3. She had also challenged the criteria adopted by respondent No.3 and the Committee. The petitioner would term the result declared by the respondents to be bad, illegal and null and against the principles of natural justice and hence, liable to be set-aside. The petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2008, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. The representation was rejected on 18.4.2008 and hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as well as respondent No.4 have filed separate replies. Respondent- Corporation has averred that the information given and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, was stated to be containing broad CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: parameters only for evaluation and did not contain specific criteria. Reference is made to note (viii) of Column No.1, where it is mentioned that selection guidelines of the Corporation, including evaluation criteria, were available on Corporation's website and in the information brochure containing detailed guidelines for selection of dealers. As per the respondents, evaluation/allocation of marks was to be done on the basis of various parameters published under clauses 16 to 21 in the information brochure and on the website, which is attached with the reply as Annexure R2/1. Referring to the guidelines provided in this brochure, it is stated that a candidate having own land or having land under registered long lease agreement was to be awarded 35 marks whereas candidate having `firm offer' of the land and willing to give the same to the Corporation on long lease was to be awarded 25 marks under the parameters of suitable land for retail outlet. It is, thus, stated that respondent No.4 was awarded 25 marks by Interview Committee as she had submitted a firm offer about suitable land on long lease basis. It is clarified that these marks have not been allotted to respondent No.4 for being owner of the land but the marks have been awarded on a firm offer basis. It is pointed out that firm offer of the land for lease can be from a third person and in this regard reference is made to Clause 16(e) of the guidelines, which are as under:- “The firm offer of land will include land offered from third person based on agreement to purchase, offer letter on stamp paper, affidavit or power of attorney duly supported by land documents.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: The respondents would, thus, justify 25 marks awarded to respondent No.4 in the category of capability to provide land and infrastructure. While replying to the averments made in the petition that respondent No.4 was awarded 0 marks against her capacity to arrange finance, it is pointed out that in fact she was awarded 17 marks out of 25 under this head and the mark sheet in this regard is already on record as Annexure P-6. Similarly, averment that the petitioner was awarded 0 mark in the capacity to arrange finance is termed as a mis-statement and reference is made to Annexure P-6 to show that she was awarded 12 marks under this head. The criteria for assessment and awarding marks in this sub-head has also been disclosed in the reply, according to which this head is sub-divided into 4 sub-heads i.e. liquid assets, fixed assets, income and letter ensuring loan/credit. Marks for these sub- heads are 12, 4, 4 and 5 respectively. The petitioner was given 12 marks on the basis of liquid assets i.e. F.D.R offered by her, which is in the name of her father. Since the petitioner had not produced any other documentary proof in regard to her financial capacity, she could not score any mark under other sub-heads. On the basis of these details, it is urged that the assessment and evaluation of the candidates have been fairly done on the basis of well laid down and formulated criteria well in advance, which was uniformly applied. Prayer is made to dismiss the petition. Counsel for the petitioner is mainly aggrieved against the award of 25 marks to respondent No.4 in the criteria of land and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: infrastructure. The counsel would refer to the definition of `family' where father-in-law is not included in the definition of `family'. The submission accordingly is that respondent No.4 was not entitled to 25 marks in the category of land and infrastructure as father-in-law could not be considered as a member of her family to entitle her 25 marks. To my mind, this argument is fallacious. As has been sufficiently explained in the reply, the criteria, as framed, do make a provision for awarding marks on the basis of a firm offer, even if such land is offered by a third person, which is based on agreement to purchase or is supported by an affidavit or power of attorney etc. Even if the father-in-law is considered not to be a member of family, he could very well offer this land as a stranger and it is on this basis, respondent No.4 was awarded 25 marks, which is well according to the criteria formulated in the guidelines and the brochure. A perusal of Annexure R-2/1 would clearly show that a person having own land or having land on long lease for a minimum period of 15 years with a renewal option for 15 years and willing to give to H.P.C.L on long term lease is to be given 35 marks. A person having a firm offer of land and willing to give it to H.P.C.L on long term lease at rental is to be given 25 marks and that is what has been done. Moreover, father- in-law is certainly more than a stranger and offer by him to daughter- in-law can not be called by a stranger. Similarly, the petitioner has also been fairly assessed and given 12 marks on the basis of a liquid cash, which she had shown at the time of making application. The petitioner really can not make any grievance in this regard. This apart, my attention has also been drawn to some of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: 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 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 8 }: 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 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2008 :{ 9 }: there is any infirmity revealed in the decision making process, which may call for any interference. Here decision is under challenge, which may be beyond the scope of writ court to interfere. There is even otherwise no merit in any of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE