WA 288/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA (Amitava Roy,J) The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 09.04.2 007 negating the assailment laid by the appellant herein in WP(C) No.389/2006 in his endeavour to have the allotment of the Retail Outlet at Digboi-Bagapani at N.H.38 site by the respondent-Company in favour of the private respondent. It is a matter of record that such allotment was by the Letter Of Intent (LOI) i ssued in favour of the Respondent No.5 on 23.11.2005 prior to the institution of the aforementioned writ petition. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the LOI was not interdicted by this Court, whereupon it is submitted at the Bar that the Respondent No.5 has made necessary investments and has been operating such outlet since then till date. We have heard Mr. R.P. Kakati, Senior Advocate for the appellant being assisted by Ms. B. Dutta, Advocate, Mr. S.N. Sarma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Za hir, Advocate for the respondent-Company and its officers and Mr. U. Bhuyan, Sen ior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.S. Dey, Advocate for the Respondent No.5. Respon dent No.6 is not in the fray. Shortly, put the facts in bare essential for the purpose of disposal of the inst ant appeal are that by an advertisement published in the issue dated 06.05.2005 of the local daily, Asammia Pratidin, the respondent-Company solicited candidatu re for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers at unanimous locations under it incl uding the one involved in the instant proceeding. The present appellant, Respon dent No.5 and others participated. On a preliminary scrutiny of the testimonials submitted by the participants, an interview was held and eventually the allotme nt was made in favour of the Respondent No.5, pursuant to which the aforemention ed LOI was issued in her favour. Being aggrieved, the writ appellant approached this Court mainly on the ground t hat the land/site offered by the Respondent No.5 was not in conformity with the advertised norm requiring that the land for such dealership ought to be at or in the vicinity thereof. According to him, the land offered by the Respondent No. 5 and accepted by the respondent-Company was situated at a distance of 15 kms. f rom Bagapani, one extreme end of the stretch of the site involved. He asserted that on the other hand his land was situated at Borbill - 2, Digboi Survey No.21 , Hissa No. P. Patta No.12 on the N.H.38 and that the same was not only ideally located for the Retail Outlet, it was superior to the one offered by the Respond ent No.5 in all conceivable aspects. The appellant also questioned the tenabili ty of the general evaluation of the candidates made by the Respondent-company an d pleaded that the Respondent No.5 had been unduly favoured with the allotment. The details of the challenge in the above lines were narrated by him in his addi tional affidavit by way of reply to the counter of the respondent-Company as wel l as the Respondent No.5. The respondent-Company in its affidavit, in essence, while endorsing the decision impugned insisted that the comparative evaluation o f the candidates was made in terms of the laid-down procedure and the norms evol ved for the purpose, vis-à-vis the suitability of the land. It enumerated the fo llowing criteria as decisive for the purpose: (a) sale potential, (b) frontage, (c) earth filling, (d) visibility, (e) obstruction like, LT O/H Line/current/trees, (f) availability of power/water, (g) presence of divider, (h) visibility from road. The answering respondent maintained that on all these counts, the Respondent No. 5 was adjudged to be better than the appellant and on a cumulative consideration of all relevant aspects, the allotment was validly allotted to her. Mr. Kakati on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the documents on rec ord, however has insistently urged that as by no stretch of imagination 15 kms. can be considered to be in the vicinity of any particular location, on that grou nd alone the offer of the Respondent No.5 ought to have been rejected. Referrin g to the evaluation chart of the candidates, the learned counsel has argued that as evidently on the aspect of capability to provide land, infrastructure and fa cility, capability to provide finance, and adequate qualification, the appellant had been denied marks as deserved by him, the assessment is evidently erroneous and the same having formed the basis of the allotment in favour of the Responde nt No.5, the impugned decision ought to be interfered with. As the impugned allo tment is visibly in departure from the prescribed norms of eligibility/suitabili ty as professed in the notice for appointment, the same if allowed to stand, wou ld be a travesty of a public participatory process, he pleaded. Mr. Sarma, on the other hand has urged that having regard to the flexibility in the expression at or in the vicinity it was permissible for the respondent-Com pany to select a suitable land by applying the prescribed norms as set out in th e respondent-Company’s counter and thus the grievance expressed by the appellant in that regard is utterly misconceived. According to him the contending candid ates have been rightly evaluated by the respondent-Company on the basis of objec tive norms and thus the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in declinin g interference with the impugned decision. Mr. Bhuyan, while in substance, adopting the stand of the respondent-Company has submitted that the Respondent No.5 without any break has been operating the Ret ail Outlet in question by investing substantial amounts of money and workforce a nd that therefore at this distant point of time even otherwise equitable conside rations, this Court ought not to overturn the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal. Having regard to the contour of the challenge as has been noticed hereinabove, t he core of the controversy appears to be the justifiability or otherwise of the acceptance of the land of the Respondent No.5 by the Respondent-Company on the t ouchstone of the norms as set out in the notice for appointment of dealership of retail outlets. By the aforementioned notice the respondent-Company in clear te rms expressed its intention to appoint dealers for outlets at or in the vicinit y of the locations as mentioned therein. While the situation of the lands offe red by the parties is not in dispute, the issue seeking the adjudication of this Court in this appeal whether the plot of the Respondent No.5 comes within the p urview of expression at or in the vicinity of Digboi - Bagapani, N.H.38 . The notice to appoint dealers for the Retail Outlet does not mention therein imp ort of the expression at or in the vicinity . There is no rough and ready measu re to define with arithmetical exactitude the distance that would determine the radius or the boundary of the locality in contemplation of the respondent-Compan y therefor. Noticeably, neither the relevance nor the acceptability of the fact ors referred to in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent-Company to adju dge the suitability of the land for the propose has been questioned by the appel lant. The expression at or in the vicinity as an inbuilt flexibility, which un less confined by acceptable objective norms, some leeway to it (respondent-Compa ny) has to be conceded to it. This is more so, it being the final judge of the parameters, relevant and decisive in taking a decision in that regard. It is not the case of the appellant before us that by accepting the land offered by the R espondent No.5 any mandate of law or administrative instructions has been contra vened by the respondent-Company. Having regard to the nature of the allotment, t he significance of location and the element of discretion, which the respondent- Company enjoys in such matters on an overall consideration of the materials on r ecord, we are left unconvinced to sustain the challenge against the impugned jud gment and order. While recording this conclusion, we have made our assessment a s well on the other counts of comparative assessment of the candidates in order to ensure that the appellant has not been treated with discrimination and/or arb itrariness. On a scrutiny of the evaluation chart, it is evident inter alia tha t the marks for capability to provide infrastructure and facility were aware on a conjoint analysis of the findings recorded by the site inspection committee an d the interview committee. The evaluation chart does not spell out any vice of inequal treatment on collateral considerations. Having regard to the constrict ed scope of judicial review in the exercise of this Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not possible to decipher any visible fact or rendering the impugned allotment in favour of the Respondent No.5 to be illeg al, arbitrary, unfair and unjust. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order reveals having cons idered all relevant aspects of the matter recorded his findings on all pertinent aspects with which we find ourselves in total agreement. There is thus no scope to interfere therewith. The writ appeal, therefore, lacks in substance and is thus dismissed. No costs.