THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20060 of 2009 ORDER: The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued advertisement dated 08.06.2009 inviting applications for the establishment of petroleum outlets at various places. One such place was at Raghunathapalem Village on Khammam to Yellandu Road. The petitioner and the 4th respondent submitted applications. After processing the same, both of them were called for the interview. On completion of the evaluation, the competent authority awarded marks to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It merged that the petitioner was awarded 67.77 marks out of 100, whereas the 4th respondent was awarded 77.63 marks. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent was awarded marks contrary to the Guidelines framed by the 1st respondent on aspects such as site, liquid cash, experience. He contends that across the site shown by the 4th respondent, high tension electricity wires are passing through and though such a site is unfit under the Guidelines, maximum marks were awarded to the site of the 4th respondent. His further contention is that even according to the particulars furnished by the 4th respondent, his personal income is ‘zero’, and still maximum marks viz., ‘12’ were awarded under the heading of “liquid cash”, whereas ‘zero’ marks were awarded to him, notwithstanding the fact that his personal income is above Rs.2,00,000/- per year. Contentions are advanced on other aspects also. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. Various allegations made by the petitioner are denied. It is also stated that in clause (19) of the Guidelines, a mechanism is provided for redressal of the grievances of this nature and the petitioner did not avail the same. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the marks were awarded by the Committee strictly as per the Guidelines and that the contention of the petitioner does not deserve consideration. Heard Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The evaluation of applications is a complex process. Not only verification of the particulars and genuinity of certificates but also inspection of the site shown by the applicants is to be undertaken. With a view to ensure objectivity in the matter, marks are allotted for various aspects and the Guidelines stipulated the manner in which the evaluation is to be undertaken. Except where the authority has gone patently wrong, this Court cannot undertake revaluation nor it can substitute its opinion for the one expressed by an expert. Visualizing the grievance felt by the applicants in the matter of evaluation of their applications, the 1st respondent has formed a Complaint Redressal Committee (for short ‘the Committee’). Clause (19) of the Guidelines provides for the same. Within 30 days from the date of declaration of results of evaluation, an aggrieved party is conferred with the right to approach the Committee. Detailed revaluation is undertaken by the Committee and there are many instances, where the initial assessment has been altered. Even now, the petitioner can avail such a remedy. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his application/representation before the Committee within two (2) weeks from today. On receiving the same, the Committee shall examine it with reference to the relevant Guidelines and pass appropriate orders within three (3) weeks thereafter, duly giving opportunity to the 4th respondent. It is needless to mention that till such exercise is completed, the allotment of the outlet shall not be made. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.12.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20060 of 2009 Date: 18.12.2009 JSU