THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20148 of 2009 ORDER: The first respondent issued a notification on 01.10.2007 inviting applications for selection and appointment of LPG distributors in various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. One such location was Chandrayangutta in Hyderabad. The petitioner, fourth respondent and certain others submitted their applications. During the course of evaluation, the petitioner was awarded 80 marks and the fourth respondent was awarded 88 marks, out of 100. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was not selected. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents, in processing and awarding the marks, as they did, that led to the selection of the fourth respondent. The petitioner contends that she is eligible to be awarded 25 marks in the matter of “capability to provide infrastructure” but she was awarded only 10 marks. The respondents filed separate counter-affidavits. It is stated that the godown shown by the petitioner in her application is not at all suitable and does not accorded with the specifications. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The only controversy in this writ petition is about the award of marks, as regards “capability to provide infrastructure”. Thirty-five (35) marks were allocated for this purpose. The method of evaluation is provided for under clause 14.2 of the brochure, for selection of distributors, which reads thus: 14.2. Allocation of marks on various parameters by Level-I Committee based on the information/statements given in the application Parameter Sub Head Description Max Marks Evaluation * Capability to provide Infrastructure a n d facilities (as on the date of application) for both Individuals and non- individuals Suitable land for LPG storage godown/godown Owns@-Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/godown Or Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/godown Or can arrange 25 18 10 Based on the information/ statement given in the application Based on the information/ statement given in the application Based on the information/ statement given in the application Suitable land/shop for showroom Owns @-Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/shop for showroom Or Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase suitable land/shop for showroom Or Can arrange 10 7 5 B a s e d on the information/ statement given in the application B a s e d on the information/ statement given in the application B a s e d on the information/ statement given in the application Sub-total maximum marks 35 The brochure clarifies that ownership would include a regular lease for a period exceeding fifteen years, and ‘firm offer’ means commitment by the owner of the building or the land to give it on lease for a period exceeding fifteen years. The petitioner filed copy of the lease dated 27.10.2007 in respect of the premises bearing No.17-1-387/54, Vaninagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Therefore, it falls into the first category, which carries 25 marks. In case, the premises taken on lease by the petitioner accorded with the specifications, she was certainly eligible to be awarded 25 marks. In clause 8.1 of the brochure, the dimensions of the plot on which godown is to be provided are shown as the one with 27 mtrs X 26.15 mtrs. In the application, the petitioner mentioned the dimension of the godown as 8000 KGs. Neither the length nor the breadth, in meters was indicated. Therefore, the very description of the property is defective. Even if the defective entry in the application is to be ignored, a verification of the lease deed filed by the petitioner discloses that the dimensions of the plot on which the godown was constructed are 26.21 mtrs X 20.12 mtrs. These are obviously different from the specifications. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the specifications adopted by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation for the godowns of different capacities. An attempt is made to correlate the godown taken on lease by the petitioner with the one of 8000 KGs capacity in the brochure issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. Firstly, that brochure cannot be taken into account because it relates to different Oil company. Secondly, there is nothing on record to disclose that the requirement of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is 8000 KGs. At any rate, this Court cannot evaluate the requirements on technical aspects, particularly, when explosive substances are involved. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was entitled to be awarded 25 marks. In fairness to the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 to 3 awarded 10 marks and the evaluation led to non-selection of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22nd February, 2010 GHN