HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.21019 of 2011 Date: October 24, 2011 Between: Smt. Palle Venkata Lakshumma … Petitioner And 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., A.P. State Office, Retail Shops, Hyderabad, rep. by its Executive Director & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.21019 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard learned counsel on either side and since the pleadings are complete, both the counsel requested for disposal of the writ petition itself. 2. The subject matter of the writ petition relates to the advertisement issued by the first respondent Corporation for selecting retail outlet dealership at Allagadda, Kurnool District. The petitioner’s contention is that though she has fulfilled all the requirements, the Evaluation Committee did not properly evaluate her candidature vis-à- vis the candidature of one Ms. O. Swetha who had also applied for grant of retail outlet dealership. The petitioner had already submitted her grievance to the Grievance Redressal Committee that it is erroneous to treat Ms. O. Swetha as No.1 instead of treating her as No.1 in the empanelment. Since the said grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed, the petitioner filed W.P. No.7502 of 2010 before this Court. The same was disposed of by order dated 07.4.2010 directing the Grievance Redressal Committee to examine the grievance of the petitioner and till the orders are communicated thereon, they were asked not to give effect to the selection of respondent No.3 therein. 3. It appears that subsequent thereto, the complaint, particularly, one made by the petitioner was investigated by the Corporation and as against three allegations made against the said Ms. O. Swetha, who was empanelled as No.1, two allegations were found not tenable and only one of the allegations regarding the eligibility based on the land offered was found to be properly evaluated, but the Corporation was of the opinion that the location requirements stated in the advertisement was very ambiguous leading to the situation where lands at a distance from the location were also offered. The first respondent Corporation thereupon passed an order dated 18.7.2011 and communicated the same to the petitioner wherein they have informed the respective complaint and the observations of the investigating officer and a final decision of the Corporation to re-advertise the location by clearly indicating the location, as there is ambiguity in the existing advertisement in that regard. The said decision of the Corporation to re-advertise the location is questioned in this writ petition. 4. The respondent Corporation has filed a counter and they placed strong reliance upon the power of the Corporation to withdraw/cancel the advertisement and issue of fresh advertisement on the basis of clause 10(b) mentioned in the advertisement itself which provides that Corporation reserved its right to cancel, withdraw, amend the advertisement or extend the due date at its sole discretion without assigning any reason. The counter-affidavit also states in paragraph 5 that on receipt of complaint by the petitioner, when the same was investigated, it was found that there is an error in the advertisement itself as the location mentioned in the advertisement is Allagadda NH-18, whereas the applicants have proposed sites not only falling under Allagadda village but also in Allagadda Mandal. This ambiguity in the location was pointed out by the Land Evaluation Committee and they included all the locations falling under Allagadda Manndal to maximize the number of applicants. The Committee however of the view that the location necessarily has to be advertised as either village or town or city or a particular stretch of highway duly describing by kilometre stones. In that view of the matter, since the advertisement earlier issued was found to be ambiguous with reference to location, the decision to withdraw the said advertisement and go for fresh advertisement was taken. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply challenging the said stand by contending that several applications were purportedly rejected by the Land Evaluation Committee on the same grounds, but they have positively entertained the application of Ms. O. Swetha. 6. So far as the allegations of empanelled candidate at No.1 Ms. O. Swetha is concerned, I am of the view, that the petitioner cannot advance any contentions against her candidature, as she is not impleaded in this writ petition. The comparative assessment between the petitioner and the said empanelled candidate No.1 therefore is not the subject matter of the present writ petition and the only surviving issue is the decision of the Corporation dated 18.7.2011 deciding to go for fresh advertisement in view of ambiguity in the present advertisement. In my view, that cannot be faulted in view of clear right therefor reserved by the Corporation to itself under Clause 10(b) of the advertisement in question. Even otherwise also an advertisement being an invitation for offer, it is always open for the Corporation to withdraw the advertisement and to go for fresh advertisement if it is necessary in the circumstances. The petitioner who is only an empanelled candidate at No.2 cannot claim any enforceable legal right to question the said decision of the Corporation. The impugned proceedings of the Corporation proposing to withdraw the present advertisement and deciding to issue fresh advertisement therefore cannot be faulted. 7. The writ petition is therefore misconceived and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the event of the respondent Corporation issuing fresh advertisement, it shall be open to the petitioner to apply in pursuance thereof and compete the retail outlet dealership along with other candidates on merits. No order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: October 24, 2011. BSB