Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 19 , 2011 Gaurav Wadhwa .....Petitioner VERSUS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & 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. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was applicant for allotment of retail outlet at Kaithal, for which he has submitted an application for a site mentioned as “between KM Stone 206 to 216 on State Highway-11”, District Kaithal. The petitioner was interviewed on 25.8.2010 at Panipat and was assessed 90% marks. He was at No.2 in the merit list. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2011 -2- The grievance of the petitioner is that there was an error in awarding 0 marks to him in the category of assets/properties. The petitioner has made reference to the value of assets, which he has submitted, but the same according to him, were not properly evaluated by the approved valuer. As per the petitioner, he would be entitled to get 4 marks in this parameter. If that was to happen, the marks obtained by the petitioner would work out to be 94% and, thus, he would rank more meritorious than respondent Nos.3 & 4, who are joint applicants and are shown at No.1 in the merit list. Before filing the present petition, the petitioner had filed a representation. In the reply filed, it is disclosed that on a representation received from the petitioner, tentative decision was taken to the effect that he would deserve 4 marks in the criteria of fixed assets. However, the marks were not actually awarded. Respondents No.1 & 2 decided to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 & 4. In response thereto, respondent Nos.3 & 4 had objected that their evaluation would also require to be reassessed. Faced with this situation, respondent Nos.1 & 2 have taken a decision to afford a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to respondent Nos.3 & 4. For this purpose, respondent Nos.1 & 2 have constituted two members' Committee of two senior officers of the Corporation to hear the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4 with regard to their respective objections. The notice dated 22.1.2011, has been sent to them. It is stated that thereafter, respondent No.1 will take a final decision on the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2011 -3- Since the final decision in regard to the merit is yet to be taken, the writ petition at this stage appears to be premature. The mode adopted by respondent Nos.1 & 2 is fair. It would be appropriate to permit respondent Nos.1 & 2 to proceed further for deciding the issue and take a final decision. The final decision in regard to the merit would be communicated in the manner which is provided under the procedure. Any party aggrieved against the decision so taken, would be at liberty to have a remedy in accordance with law. To ensure a fair right to challenge the final decision, it is directed that the decision shall not be implemented for a period of 10 days after the same is communicated to the parties concerned. Thereafter, if no challenge is made, respondent Nos.1 & 2 would be at liberty to act in accordance with the decision so taken. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. May 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE