IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12511 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.02.2010 Sachin ....Petitioner versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the allotment of a letter of intent for establishing a ‘Kisan Seva Kendra’ that was awarded to the 4th respondent. Under the scheme formulated by the Indian Oil Corporation, the allottee would be entitled to set up a retail outlet dealership. The petitioner was one of the applicants, who had been short-listed but he had been preferred to the 4th respondent in the matter of allotment and therefore, the writ petition challenges the allotment to the 4th respondent on a contention that he was more meritorious and therefore, the rejection of his candidature was arbitrary and in violation of the relevant criteria. Civil Writ Petition No.12511 of 2009 - 2 - 2. It is an admitted case that the choice of the candidates are made on relative merits by awarding marks against each one of the relevant criteria. The guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers have been laid out and by a relative grading of marks, it was found that the 4th respondent had been awarded higher marks in aggregate to the petitioner. The challenge by the petitioner is on the ground that the marks have not been properly awarded to the petitioner. 3. The assessment of the candidates have been done on 10 parameters. The marks awarded to the petitioner and the 4th respondent are as follows:- Dealership Maximum marks Petitioner 4 th respondent Category evaluation parameters Land 35 34.76 33.5 Finance 20 16 17 Letter/Loan 5 5 5 Education 15 15 10 Business Generation 5 5 5 Project plan 5 2.5 4.17 Age 4 2 2 Experience 4 1 4 Business ability 5 2.5 3.67 Personality 2 1.67 1.58 ____________________________________________ Maximum marks 100 85.42 85.91 It can be noticed that the petitioner trains his guns only against three parameters as of immediate relevance. As regards the marks awarded for the land, the petitioner has been awarded 34.76, while the 4th respondent Civil Writ Petition No.12511 of 2009 - 3 - has been awarded 33.5. According to the learned counsel, over the property of the respondent, there are high tension wires running and therefore, it is not fit for locating the outlet. The petitioner has obtained a certificate about the above aspect but the 4th respondent has denied the averments that there are any high tension wires running over the property and there is any impediment for locating the outlet. The difference is only minimal and it is not possible for me to enter into any adjudication on a disputed question of fact. The petitioner also has a grievance that he has been awarded only one mark against experience while the 4th respondent has been awarded 4 marks. The experience certificate which he has submitted to the respondents 1 and 2 is that he had been working on a part-time basis without salary from 1st April, 2005 to 30th December, 2008. The 4th respondent had produced a certificate to the effect that he had been an employee with Balaji Filling Station as the Manager-cum- Accountant for the last 3 years. The relative higher grading, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, was that the petitioner had been a part-time worker doing some menial work while the 4th respondent had been a Manager-cum-Accountant for a period of 3 years and the nature of work had afforded to the 4th respondent a higher evaluation. On the issue of business ability, both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent have submitted project reports and the petitioner has been assessed with 2.5 marks while the 4th respondent has been assessed at 3.67 marks. To a challenge at the said evaluation, the respondent contend that the marks had been awarded on the basis of project reports as well as the assessment of the individual at the time of interview. Civil Writ Petition No.12511 of 2009 - 4 - Leadership qualities are also believed to be appraised under the said head. It cannot be a judicial function to examine how marks could be awarded and what marks could a person be actually awarded. Beyond examination of the issue whether the selection process had set on some objective criteria and had been reasonably transparent, no further exercise could be undertaken by the Court to annul the selection process. 4. K. Vinod Kumar Versus S. Palanisamy and others-2003 (10) SCC 681, dealt with the case of distribution of dealership of LPG. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that so long as the power is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt its own procedure subject to satisfying the test of reasonableness and fairness of the actions of the Board. The Court would not normally interfere by going into the merits of each case. In Shiv Kant Yadav Versus Indian Oil Corporation and others-2007(4) SCC 410, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the allotment of dealership of petroleum products. A mis-statement or mis-declaration about the income, was found to justify withdrawal of the letter of intent. In Common Cause A Registered Society Versus Union of India and others-AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3538, the Court interfered with the matter of allotment of petrol pumps. In Sham Lal Versus Union of India and others-AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 147, this Court held that if the selection of allotment of petrol pump, is arbitrary, interference through writ jurisdiction would be available, though normally no interference would be made. All the above decisions have a bearing to the general considerations of the extent of judicial review in matters of allotment of Civil Writ Petition No.12511 of 2009 - 5 - petrol pump or distribution of State largesse. The single important aspect that would require to be considered is if proper criteria are laid down and marks are awarded, unless the marks of award are found to be totally arbitrary and driven by extraneous consideration, no interference would be possible. A Division Bench of this Court 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 16.09.2008, held in the matter of award of an allotment of a petrol pump that the Court while exercising the power of judicial review, will not examine the marks given to each candidate for allotment of a commercial venture i.e. a retail outlet. It is for the Oil Company to see its business interest. The above decision squarely answers the problem that has to be addressed in this case. There is no arbitrariness in the matter of allotment and in my view, there is no scope to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.02.2010. sanjeev