IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10037 of 2010 1. BINDESHWARI PATHAK S/O LATE NAND KISHORE PATHAK R/O VILL. & P.O.- DUNHI, P.S.- GARHPURA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI----------petitioner Versus 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 2. GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION, BEGUSARAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.O.- BARAUNI OIL REFINERY, BEGUSARAI 4. SRI AMRENDRA KUMAR ROY S/O LATE HARI NANDAN ROY VILL.+P.O.- KORAI, P.S.- GARHPURA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI--------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Rajiv Verma,Sr.Advocate R.N.Kanth, Advocate For the respondents:M/S Kali Das Chatterji Amlesh Kr.Verma,Advocates ---- 2. 12.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the respondent Corporation to hold fresh interview of all eligible candidates in relation to award of Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership at village Korai in Begusarai District as communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure-7). The short facts of this case are that an advertisement was issued for award of Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership at Korai location in which the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 among others were the applicants. After completing all formalities the merit list of 2 empanelled candidates was prepared in which the respondent No.4 was at No.1 and the petitioner was at No.2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the authorities stating that the land offered by respondent No.4 is not registered and there is a culvert in the middle of the land offered by him and accordingly claimed that he should be disqualified and the dealership should be offered to the petitioner. The matter was investigated by an Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation and it was found that there was substance in the first part of the complaint since it was found that there was a culvert infront of the land of the first empanelled candidate, respondent No.4 and for the said reason the competent authority of the Corporation decided to hold fresh interview of all eligible applicants who had applied for the said location against advertisement dated 16.11.2006 and 11.8.2007 which was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 5.3.2010. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the guidelines issued by 3 the Indian Oil Corporation for the selection of operators of the Kisan Seva Kendra it is provided that in case any complaint is made against the first empanelled candidate and the same is found to be correct then action will be taken on the complaint and the next candidate of the panel shall be appointed. It is urged by learned counsel that the complaint of the petitioner having been found to be substantiated and it was found that there was a culvert in the land of respondent No.4, hence the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation ought to have acted in accordance with the guidelines and appointed the petitioner as the dealer. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the selection of dealers is made on the basis of a large number of criteria which is evident from the merit panel annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, in which the capability provided as infructure and facility, that is, site etc. is just one part of the said criteria carrying 35 out of 100 marks. It is also submitted by him that in the guidelines the only mention that has been made is that 11 4 marks will be provided if the land is located at a desirable distance from the culvert and the presence of culvert itself has not been stated to be a disqualification. It is thus contended that the question of offering of dealership to the next candidate can only be given effect to when the first candidate in the merit panel is found to be disqualified and his dealership is cancelled, which is evident from the guidelines itself. Since the respondent No.4 who is the first empanelled candidate is not found to be disqualified but it was merely found that there was a culvert in the front of his land hence it was decided by the competent authority to go for a fresh interview of all the applicants so that the said aspect of the matter could also be considered while awarding fresh marks. It is emphasized by learned counsel that most of the criteria are objective in nature and thus the petitioner would not be adversely affected by the fresh interview. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on the record this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the 5 Indian Oil Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show either from the advertisement or from any guidelines issued by the Corporation that mere presence of a culvert near the land of a candidate disqualifies him from selection as a dealer of the said Kisan Seva Kendra. All that can be culled out from the various guidelines produced before this Court is that as many as 11 marks are allocated if it is found that the land is at a desirable distance from a culvert. What is the desirable distance is nowhere to be found in the booklet or in anything which has been brought on the record. It is however certain that mere presence of a culvert does not disqualify either in terms of the advertisement or even any of the guidelines given by the Corporation. In the said circumstances, it could not be held on the finding of existence of a culvert in the front of the land of respondent No.4 that he was disqualified for the dealership. That being the position, there can be no automatic handing over of the dealership to the petitioner and thus the decision of the competent authority to hold 6 fresh interview of all the eligible candidates does not appear to be arbitrary and unreasonable. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/