THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2835 of 2009 ORDER: M/s Indian Oil Corporation, respondents 1 and 2 (for short ‘the Corporation’) issued a notification dated 29-11-2007, inviting applications for selection of a dealer, for establishing Kisan Seva Kendra. For distribution of petroleum products, the petitioner submitted his application on 31-12-2007. Along with other applications received in response to the notification, the Corporation has processed the application of the petitioner. An extent of 30 cents of land was shown by the petitioner as the place for establishment of the unit. That land was purchased by him, through sale deed dated 22-05-2008. On a relative assessment of the candidates, the Corporation selected the petitioner and placed the 3rd respondent at Sl.No.2, and it accordingly issued letter of intent (LOI), dated 15-09-2008 to the petitioner. A complaint was received by the Corporation to the effect that the land purchased by the petitioner was acquired by the Government in the year 2007 itself. The Corporation caused further enquiry, and on coming to know that the land was acquired by the Government, it issued letter dated 05-02-2009, revoking their LOI. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was under the bona fide impression that his vendor has perfect title over the land, and that he cannot be penalized for the fraud played upon him. He further submits that in the immediate neighbourhood, he has one acre of land, and the same can be taken into account. The Corporation, on the one hand, and respondent No.3, on the other hand, filed separate counter-affidavits. According to them, the petitioner incurred disqualification on account of his furnishing a land, on which, he does not have any title at all. It is stated that even if the petitioner has any other land, the process of selection cannot be undertaken once again. Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1, on evaluation of the applications received, in response to the notification dated 29-11-2007. The 3rd respondent was placed at Sl.No.2. LOI was issued to the petitioner on 15-09-2008. The evaluation is undertaken on various aspects. Separate marks are awarded for land and infrastructure, financial capacity, educational qualifications, etc. The petitioner was awarded marks in respect of the land shown by him. Once it has emerged that the land was acquired by the Government, the very basis for the selection of the petitioner suffers a serious set back. Assuming that the petitioner has any land in the immediate neighbourhood, that cannot be taken into account, at this stage. The location, suitability, road facing, etc., of the land, would have their own importance, and all such evaluation takes place, before a candidate is selected as dealer. No such exercise can be undertaken, after the issuance of LOI. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall not be accused of making any misrepresentation, and he shall not be disqualified in the future course. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-02-2011. KO