CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13104 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 04 ,2011 Paramjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., New Delhi and 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. R. K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for HPCL. Mr. Sumeet Abrol, AAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.10. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In response to an advertisement issued by respondent- Hindustan Petroleum on 8.7.2009, the petitioner applied for allotment of a retail outlet at a location between Singhpura and Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran. The petitioner was interviewed on 6.10.2009 and result thereof was declared on the same date. As per the petitioner, one Ashok Kumar, employee of respondent Nos.1 to 3, clearly proclaimed that the retail outlet had already been allotted in favour of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13104 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Varun Kumar, which came out true. Said Varun Kumar (respondent No.4) was placed at merit list No.1 whereas the petitioner was placed at No.2 in the merit list. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not awarded any mark in the category of capability to arrange finances on the ground that he had shown his fixed assets/property alongwith the bank statement certified by the Chartered Accountant. Respondent No.4 was awarded 5 marks under this category, which is termed as unfair and unjust. The petitioner had also sent telegrams immediately after declaration of the result. In response, the petitioner was required to send supporting documents and material. The petitioner subsequently made another complaint on 6.11.2009 against the proposed setting up of retail outlet, which was near cremation ground and has thereafter filed the present writ petition after serving a legal notice. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and other respondents. The sole submission advanced by the petitioner to challenge his under assessment is on the ground that the respondents are not justified in ignoring the valuation of his assets on the ground that these were evaluated by Chartered Accountant. The stipulation in the guidelines issued by the Corporation requires evaluation from Government evaluator. The petitioner had attached the valuation certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant with the application against the requirement of submitting such certificate from a duly Government approved valuer. Counsel for the petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13104 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: has emphasized that certificate from the Chartered Accountant would be more authentic as compared to the requirement of having a certificate from the Government valuer and, thus, action of the respondents in not awarding any mark to the petitioner on this ground was unjust and improper. The condition in the guidelines and the brochure, however, has clearly provided for the requirement of such a certificate from a Government Valuer. This is so provided in Clause 16(b) of the guidelines. If a particular requirement is provided in the brochure and in the guidelines and is kept in view for evaluation of respective merits of the candidates, then there can not be any valid objection to such a course. It is for the respondent-Corporation to lay down the requirement and if it is so done, then the same has to be strictly followed. Respondent-Corporation is the best judge to provide for conditions in the brochure. It is not that the petitioner is taken by any surprise inasmuch as that this requirement has been introduced suddenly without having been incorporated in the brochure or the guidelines. The Courts, while exercising power of judicial review in such like matters, have a limited scope of interference and can not act as a Court of appeal. The evaluation of the respective merits has to be done by the respondent-Corporation. After all, it is a commercial transaction and the exact requirement is well and better understood by the Corporation, which has to award such commercial contracts. The Court, while exercising judicial review, will not reassess marks given to each candidate for allotment of commercial venture and it is for the Oil Companies to see its business interest CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13104 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: and then take a decision. The approach of the respondent- Corporation does not suffer from any want of fairness, which may call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 04,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE