1 5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11204/2010. Anuraag Kumar Jain Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order :: 3rd December 2010. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Rakesh Matoria, for the petitioner. <><><> BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the selection of respondent No.3 for allotment of retail outlet dealership at “Nithava Pal on Sabla to Parsola Road (Left Hand Side)”. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 had been the candidates for award of such dealership by the respondent No.1 and they were interviewed on 16.11.2010. The respondent No.3, after having secured total marks at 83.57, was empanelled at first; and the petitioner, with 67.75 marks, was empanelled at the second place. Seeking to question such empanellment of the respondent No.3, broadly two submissions have been pressed on behalf of the petitioner. In the first place, it is contended that as per condition 'D' of general terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 30.08.2010, no addition, deletion or alteration was permissible after depositing the 2 application form but in the case of the respondent No.3, a substantial alteration was made later inasmuch as the Demand Draft (DD) in the sum of Rs. 1000/- as deposited by him was corrected on 12.10.2010; and the factum of such alteration has been verified by the Bank in its communication dated 23.11.2010 (Annex.9). It is submitted that such alteration was not permissible and hence, the candidature of the respondent No.3 was required to be rejected. It is next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the advertisement initially issued on 30.08.2010, the location in question was mentioned at item No. 302 as “Nithava Pal Sabla to Parsola Road (Left Hand Side)” but this description was amended by the advertisement (Annex.4) to “Nithava Pal Karmat Sabla Road on Left Hand Side”. It is contended that as per the amended advertisement, the location of the proposed outlet would fall just opposite to the site stated in the original advertisement. However, according to the petitioner, the candidates were examined and the evaluation was made with reference to the description stated in the original advertisement and the property of the respondent No.3 for which he has been awarded higher marks was also evaluated accordingly. It is contended that the respondents have not kept the amended advertisement in view and hence, the entire selection process stand vitiated. 3 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason in this case to show interference in the writ jurisdiction. It remains trite that any interference in such matters is taken up only when a clear case of arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or procedural impropriety is made out. The selection process in question does not appear suffering from any of such factors. So far the so-called alteration in the application is concerned, it appears that it had been a minor clerical error where the DD was drawn by the Bank in the name of “Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited” instead of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited”. The amendment in the DD, even if made on 12.10.2010, cannot be considered vitiating the entire application because the DD was nevertheless intended to be payable to the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation only. Such clerical mistake and its correction cannot at all be considered as that of alteration of the original application. So far the submission about location is concerned, all the candidates have been evaluated in relation to the location at Sl. No. 302 i.e., “Nithava Pal, on Sabla to Parsola Road (Left Hand Side)”. The respondent No.1 was best in the knowledge of the location where the outlet was proposed to be 4 established. There does not appear any material alteration in that regard in the amendment notification either. Though the date of amendment notification (Annex.4) has not been given but even if it be assumed that such amendment was carried out, the Corporation was conscious of the proposed location and has evaluated the candidates accordingly. Moreover, it does not appear that any objection about the location was raised by anybody at the time of interviews. No case of arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or procedural impropriety is made out so as to warrant interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/