CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 03 ,2011 Smt.Dev Prabha Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai 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. A. K. Bajpai & Mr. M. F. Khan, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was an applicant for LPG Distributionship at Piyala has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of writ of prohibition commanding the respondents not to make allotment in favour of respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 shown in the select panel on the ground that they have not been properly assessed while considering their merits. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: On 9.11.2007, an advertisement for allotment of LPG Distributionship at Piyala was issued. The petitioner applied for the same and was called for interview on 16.2.2009. The result was declared and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were shown at merit No.1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner claims that she learnt about some corrupt practice adopted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 while making selection. The petitioner also learnt that respondent No.4 had filed Civil Writ Petition No.7386 of 2009, challenging the select panel so prepared. As per the petitioner, respondent No.4 offered a site/land of the proposed showroom at Sikri, which is outside the advertised location i.e. Piyala, District Faridabad, Haryana. Similar is the position of respondent No.3, who has offered the proposed showroom site at Shahupura, which is outside the advertised location. On this basis, the petitioner has made a grievance that 10 marks allotted to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the site of showroom is in violation of the guidelines/selection process and if these marks are deducted from the total marks obtained by them, then the petitioner would become more meritorious than the select panel and, thus, entitled to the allotment of the Distributionship. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as private respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed separate replies. As per the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been rightly awarded 10 marks for the showroom site as the same is available in the area of operation (Trading Area) of the advertised location and both the sites are easily accessible by road. The sole submission made by the petitioner is that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: showroom sites offered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 are located at a place which is outside the area of Piyala and hence, both the respondents could not have been given 10 marks for showroom in the capacity to provide land and infrastructure facilities. In Clause 13.2 of the advertisement, the requirement of showroom is given and this has to be as per the standard laid down, which can be constructed in a shop/land located in the area of operation (Trading Area) of the advertised location for LPG Distributionship and should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. As per the respondents, this requirement has been kept in view and so the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the location is not in Piyala would not be of much significance for assessment and for award of marks in this category. It is claimed that both respondents have been rightly allowed marks as the showroom site is in the area of operation (Trading Area) and, thus, there is no valid ground to interfere in the manner of assessment, as is being pleaded by the petitioner. It is also observed that it is for the oil company to see its business interest and to award letter of intent keeping in view its policy. This Court has consistently held that while exercising judicial review, the writ court has limited scope to interfere in such like matters. In M/s Shree Gomukh Marketing Private Limited Versus Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited, Panipat and another in Civil Writ Petition No.15681 of 2007, dated 16.9.2008, it is held that the Courts, while exercising power of judicial review in the matter of allotment of petrol pump, do not examine the marks CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: given to each candidate for allotment of commercial venture. A mere power to choose, can not be termed as arbitrary. Again this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2096 of 2009 (Bharat Gupta Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another),, decided on 22.3.2011, while commenting upon principles governing the judicial review, has observed as under:- “The principle of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favourtism. There are, however, inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy. They, thus, are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision- making process itself. It is, thus, different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal, the court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal. Since the power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, the court cannot substitute its own decision. This apart, the court is hardly equipped to do so and it would not be desirable also. Where the selection or rejection is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: arbitrary, certainly the court would interfere. It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard or with zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substitute its judgment for that of the administrator. Reference in this regard can be made to Nottinghamshire County Council Versus Secretary of State for the Environment & Others, (1986) 1 All ER 199. This view is followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651. That being the scope of judicial review in such like matters, no case for interference certainly is made out.” Respondent-Corporation is the best judge to evaluate the criteria and award marks on the basis of site or other parameters. It is basically a commercial venture being entered into by the respondent-Corporation. The requirement is known to the Corporation. There is nothing indicated to show that award of marks would suffer for want of any valid consideration. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 03 ,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE