IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18462 of 2008 GORAKH NATH TIWARY, son of Kapilmuni Tiwary, resident of Village – Khaira Bhudhar, P.S. Bikramganj, in the district of Rohtas. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, New Delhi, Govt. of India. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through the Senior Divisional Retails Sales Manager, I.O.C. Patna Divisional Office, Block-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, State Office, Block- A, Maurya Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 4. Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Block-A, Maurya Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. D K Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Sunil Kumar. For the Indian Oil Corporation : M/S. Kali Das Chatterji & Amlesh Kumar Verma. ------ 02. 04.11.2009 Petitioner was selected to be the candidate eligible in every respect for opening of what is known as Kisan Sewa Kendra at Karahagar, in the district of Rohtas. The outlet was to be opened under the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking. After the selection petitioner was given a Letter of Intent with a direction that he shall complete all formalities including construction and make the outlet functional within four months from the date of issuance of L.O.I. The Letter of Intent is dated 5.5.2007. Since the petitioner failed to meet the deadline he was issued a show cause. Petitioner offered an explanation to the Company that the person who had executed lease for the land in question has gone back on his promise and therefore, he could be allowed to offer another piece of land to establish the said Kisan Sewa Kendra. This request of the petitioner was not accepted by the Corporation and vide annexure-1 dated 17.11.2008 the Letter of - 2 - Intent stands withdrawn. The same is under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that after the petitioner has attained eligibility he had all the commitment within him to meet the dead line set by the Corporation but he was prevented due to mischief played by the landlord, who went back on his promise or the lease. Petitioner was left with no option but to offer another piece of land, may be in the same area. He has also taken legal action against the landlord in this regard, which is another issue. In this background the Company should be directed to consider the case or offer the petitioner. Learned counsel representing Indian Oil Corporation submits that selections are based on the declarations made by each and every candidate in his application form. Based on such declaration comparative analysis is done by the Board and requisite marks are assigned by the selection board. If now petitioner is permitted to change the parameters it is going to lead to chaos and litigation. There could be allegations of favourtism or extra indulgence having been shown to the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on the advertisement where it is categorically stated that after the declaration is made, no change will be allowed to be effected in the form or offer. Position being as stated above, in matter of selection of dealership the Court does not want to come to the rescue of the petitioner, howsoever hard the facts may be. Allowing the change in - 3 - the parameters would mean giving him unfair advantage after the selection has been made. The only option, therefore, left at this stage would be for the Company to go for re-advertisement. If the petitioner still fulfils the criteria he may apply for the same and may be he will be considered afresh. No separate direction can be issued to allow the petitioner to offer another piece of land for retail outlet in question contrary to the advertisement and terms. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)