JUDGMENT : G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the appointment of Smt. Neelam Singh (respondent No. 6) as distributor of LPG at Maniyar in district Ballia. The parties have exchanged affidavits and with their consent, the writ petition its being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation, Northern Zone, (hereinafter referred to as the IOC) issued an advertisement in the newspapers for appointment of distributor of Indane Gas (LPG) at Maniyar in district of Ballia and some other places. It was also mentioned in the advertisement that the distributorship is reserved for women. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner Smt. Manju Bala Chaubey moved an application in prescribed proforrna along with a bank draft of Rs. 500. The petitioner and thirty four other candidates were called to appear for an interview before the Dealer Selection Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Board). The Selection Board recommended the names of three persons, namely : (i) Smt. Manju Bala Chaubey, petitioner; (ii) Smt. Neelam Singh, respondent No. 6 and (iii) Smt. Manju Singh, respondent No. 7. According to the petitioner, the result of the interview conducted by the Selection Board was pasted on the notice board of the office in which her name was placed at the top. Since the petitioner was the only widow amongst the three candidates recommended by the Selection Board, she was hopeful that the distributorship shall be allotted to her. Subsequently, it was learnt that the IOC had selected respondent No. 6 Smt. Neelam Singh for being appointed as distributor of LPG at Maniyar in the district of Ballia and a letter of intent was issued in her favour on 12.5.1999. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order by which respondent No. 6 has been appointed as distributor of LPG and has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to IOC to appoint the petitioner as dealer of LPG at Maniyar in the district of Ballia. 3. Before considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to mention certain basic facts which have a bearing on the controversy raised. 3. Before considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to mention certain basic facts which have a bearing on the controversy raised. The Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India has made a policy and in accordance therewith eligibility criteria has been laid down for award of dealership/distributorship of petrol, diesel and LPG by the Public Sector Oil Companies. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the relevant part thereof is being reproduced below : "Eligibility criteria for award of dealership/Distributorship under 'open' category : PART I Please note the following carefully : You should submit the application form only if you conform to the following eligibility criteria. In case, you do not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria or the application is not complete in all respects, it is liable to be rejected without assigning any reasons and no correspondence will be entertained in this regard. 1. Nationality Indian 2. Age Min. 21 years Max. 60 years on the date of application. 3. Educational Qualification Minimum Matriculation or recognized equivalent. 4. Residence Resident of the concealed District as stated in the advertisement. 5. Relationship (a) No person shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship if he/ she already holds a Letter of Intent (LOI) or a dealership/ distributorship of MS/HSD/ Kerosene/ LDO/ LPG of any Public Sector Oil Company. (b) No person shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship if any of the following close relatives (including step relations) of the person already holds a letter of dealership/distributorship of MS/HSD/Kerosene /LDO/LPG of any Public Sector Oil Company. (i) Spouse (ii) Father/Mother (not applicable to daughter) (iii) Brother/ Brother's wife (not applicable for women applicants) (iv) Son /daughter in law 6. Gross income The candidate not have gross income of more than Rs. 2 lacs for the last financial year, as specified in the advertisement. The income for this purpose will Include that of self, spouse and dependent children. If the candidate is dependent on the parents, then their income will also be-consideration for computing the total 7. Partnership Each partner should individually meet, each eligibility norm. If any of the partners is found ineligible, the applications of all the partners shall be rejected. 8. Cooperative societies (a) The co-operative society must be registered. If the candidate is dependent on the parents, then their income will also be-consideration for computing the total 7. Partnership Each partner should individually meet, each eligibility norm. If any of the partners is found ineligible, the applications of all the partners shall be rejected. 8. Cooperative societies (a) The co-operative society must be registered. (b) No society shall be awarded a new dealership/ distributorship if it or any of thealready hold(s) a Letter of Intent or a dealership/ distributorship of MS/HSD/ Kerosene/LDO/L PG of any Public Sector Oil Company. 9. .................. 10. .................. 11. .................. PART II Please ensure compliance with the following conditions while submitting the application : (1) If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed herewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect or false, his/her application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case, he/she has been appointed as a dealer/ distributor, his/her dealership /distributorship shall have no claim whatsoever against the oil company. (2) In case of partnership, each partner should submit an application form giving the requisite information against item 15 of application form that it is a partnership application. The applicants who desire to apply as partners should tag their applications together and submit in one lot. Each partner should individually meet eligibility criteria and all of them must appear for the interview. (3) ..... (4) ..... (5) ..... (6) ..... (7) Residence The applicant must produce separately a residence certificate issued within previous six months of the date of application duly signed by the Competent Government Authority as per the attached format. (8) Priority and facilities to women (applicable for location reserved for women only). Other things being equal unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be given priority over others. 4. On their application and subject to the satisfaction of the oil company, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be provided the following by the oil company as per the prevalent policies. For Retail Outlet (Petrol/Diesel outlet) .... ..... For Kerosene/LDO Dealership : ..... ..... For LPG Distributorship : (a) A complete LPG godown. (b) Showroom (c) Required delivery system (d) Two telephones without STD/ISD (Rental and call charges to be borne by the dealer). For Retail Outlet (Petrol/Diesel outlet) .... ..... For Kerosene/LDO Dealership : ..... ..... For LPG Distributorship : (a) A complete LPG godown. (b) Showroom (c) Required delivery system (d) Two telephones without STD/ISD (Rental and call charges to be borne by the dealer). (e) Clean Toilet. Oil companies will also provide to the selected candidate (falling in the above category), an adequate working capital for a full operation cycle for the operation of dealership/ distributorship. Both the working capital as well as 11% per annum interest thereon will be recovered in 100 monthly instalments from the 13th month of commissioning of the dealership/distributorship." 5. The advertisement issued by the IOC in the newspapers was also in accordance with the aforesaid policy and eligibility criteria of the Central Government. The copy of the advertisement issued in a Hindi newspaper has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it specifically laid down that the applicant should satisfy the conditions enumerated therein. The advertisement issued by the IOC in the newspapers was also in accordance with the aforesaid policy and eligibility criteria of the Central Government. The copy of the advertisement issued in a Hindi newspaper has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it specifically laid down that the applicant should satisfy the conditions enumerated therein. Some of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement which are relevant for the decision of the case are being reproduced below:- ^^bafM;u vk;y ekdsZfVax fMohtu mRrjh {ks= bafM;u xSl ds fy, ,yŒihŒthŒ forjd ,tsalh&dsoy efgykvksa ds fy, vkjf{krA 1---------------------------------------------- 2---------------------------------------------- ¼d½----------------------------------------------- ¼[k½----------------------------------------------- ¼x½----------------------------------------------- ¼?k½---------------------------------------------- ¼³½ ifjokj@ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk vkosnu i= esa nh xbZ gS@dh vk; fiNys foRrh; o"kZ 1996&97 esa nks yk[k :i;s ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg,A ¼p½ fdlh lkoZtfud {ks= dh rsy dEiuh esa ,eŒ,lŒ@,pŒ,lŒMhŒ@,lŒdsŒvksŒ@,yŒMhŒvksŒ vkSj ,yŒihŒthŒ forjd ,tsalh@Mhyj ,tsalh ;k vk'k; i= ugha ÁkIr gqvk gksA ¼N½ fdlh lkoZtfud {ks= dh rsy dEiuh dk ,eŒ,lŒ@,pŒ,lŒMhŒ@,yŒihŒthŒ dh forjd@,tsalh ;k vk'k; i= fdlh utnhdh fj'rsnkj tSls&lkSrsys ifjokj lfgr 1- ifr&iRuh] 2- ekrk&firk ¼iq=h ds fy;s ykxw ugha½ 3- iq=@iq=o/kw dks u feyk gksA 3----------------------------------------- 4----------------------------------------- 5- vU; 'krsZ leku gksus ij 40 lky dh mez ls vf/kd vfookfgr efgykvksa dks ftuds ekrk&firk /kuktZu u djrs gksa vkSj fo/kokvksa dks vU; yksxksa ls ojh;rk nh tk;saxhA 6---------------------------------------- 7---------------------------------------- 8---------------------------------------- 9---------------------------------------- 10---------------------------------------- 11- muds vkosnu i= vkSj rsy daiuh dh larqf"V gksus ij 40 lky dh mez ls vf/kd vfookfgr efgykvksa ftuds ekrk&firk /kuktZu u djrs gksa vkSj fo/kokvksa dks orZeku uhfr;ksa ds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr lqfo/kkvksa ds fy, rsy daifu;ka Áko/kku djsxhA ¼d½ ,d iwjh rjg ls lqlfTtr ,yŒihŒthŒ xksnkeA ¼[k½ 'kks:eA ¼x½ vko';d fMyhojh i)frA ¼?k½ nks fcuk ,lŒVhŒMhŒ@vkbZŒ,lŒMhŒ okyk VsyhQksu&ftldk HkkM+k vkSj VsyhQksu [kpZ Mhyj }kjk ogu fd;k tk;sxkA ¼³½ Álk/kkuA Mhyj ,tsalh dks pykus ds fy, iwjh Ápkyu ÁfØ;k ds fy, rsy daifu;ka dk;Z lapkyu ds fy, i;kZIr iawth vkSj ml ij 11 Áfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt nksuksa dh olwyh Mhyj ,tsalh 'kq: gksus ds 13 eghus ckn 100 cjkcj ekfld fd'rksa esa dh tk,xhA ;fn yksds'ku efgykvksa ds fy, vkjf{kr ugha gS rks dkV nsaA** 6. It is averred in the writ petition, which fact has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner passed High School, Intermediate and B.A. Examination in 1st Division and M.A. in Sanskrit in IInd Division in the year 1987. It is averred in the writ petition, which fact has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner passed High School, Intermediate and B.A. Examination in 1st Division and M.A. in Sanskrit in IInd Division in the year 1987. After she became a widow, she passed M.A. in Hindi in 1st Division and also B.Ed, and M.Ed, in 1st Division. The petitioners husband Bharatji Chaubey expired on 29.3.1989 just two years after her marriage. A son was born to her on 15.6.1988 and he was only nine months old when her husband died. Her father-in-law died in 1994 and her own father, with whom she had started living after the death of her husband, also died in 1997. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of IOC, it is pleaded that three names were recommended by the Selection Board. The list which was pasted on the notice board in which the name of the petitioner was shown at the top was not drawn on the basis of merit but had been prepared in alphabetical order. While recommending the names, the Selection Board had prepared a merit list in which Smt. Neelam Singh (respondent No. 6) was shown at serial No. 1 while the petitioner Smt. Manju Bala Chaubey was at serial No. 3. 8. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned senior counsel for the IOC has submitted that while holding interview the members of the Selection Board award marks in accordance with prescribed guidelines and thereafter a merit list is prepared. The priority or preference to a widow as mentioned in the policy laid down by the Government of India, could only be given if the marks secured by a widow in the interview were equal to another woman candidate who was not a widow and if the marks secured by a widow were less than that of a woman candidate who was not a widow, the question of giving her priority would not arise. At the time of argument. Dr. Padia placed before the Court a copy of a printed proforma, Appendix N (1) whereof relates to comparative statement of the performance of the candidates interviewed and Appendix N whereof contains several columns where under each head marks have to be given by the members of the Selection Board. Appendix-N is important and it shows that members have to give marks to each candidate on the following basis: Personality. Appendix-N is important and it shows that members have to give marks to each candidate on the following basis: Personality. business ability. Salesmanship - 30 Marks Capability to arrange finance Educational. - 20 Marks Educational General Level of Intelligence - 20 Marks Capability to provide infrastructure and facility - 15 Marks General Assessment ... - 15 Marks Total -(100 marks) 9. Dr. Padia has stressed that the Selection Board consists of three members including a Chairman who is a retired High Court Judge and the members of the Board give marks to each candidate on the basis of the criteria laid down in Appendix-N and not on their whims or fancy and, therefore, no fault could be found with the process of selection held by the Selection Board and the final selection of respondent No. 6 for appointment as distributor of LPG. 10. Sri R. N, Singh. learned senior counsel for respondent No. 6 also urged that the Selection Board had recommended three names after awarding marks strictly on the criteria laid down in Appendix-N by the IOC and in the selection so held the name of respondent No. 6 was placed at the top of the list and consequently her selection has been made strictly on merit. He has also urged that the question of giving preference to the petitioner on the ground that she was a widow did not arise as she had secured less marks than respondent No. 6 in the interview conducted by Selection Board. According to Shri Singh the question of giving priority or preference would arise only if the marks secured by a widow were equal to a woman who was not a widow. 11. The question which arises for consideration is whether the criteria laid down by IOC on the basis of which members of the Selection Board have to allot marks to the candidates under different heads is justified in law. There is no dispute that the eligibility criteria for award of dealership/distributorship has been laid down by the Central Government and Public Sector Oil Companies including IOC are bound to strictly follow the aforesaid eligibility criteria. It is also not in dispute that IOC is a Public Sector Oil Company and it has no power or authority either to alter or vary the eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government. It is also not in dispute that IOC is a Public Sector Oil Company and it has no power or authority either to alter or vary the eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government. Appendix-N shows that 20 marks have been allotted under the head-capability to arrange finance, 15 marks have been allotted under the head-capability to provide infrastructure and facility and 30 marks have been allotted under the head personality, business-ability, salesmanship. The eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government. which has been reproduced earlier, and also the advertisement issued by the IOC no where provided that the aforesaid factors would be taken into consideration for selecting a candidate for being appointed as a distributor of LPG. Apart from prescribing the Indian nationality, minimum and maximum age and minimum qualification of Matriculation, it laid emphasis on factors like relations holding letter of intent or dealership in petroleum products of any Public Sector Oil Company and gross income for which purpose the income of a candidate and his spouse and dependent children has to be clubbed. It also laid down that in case of partnership each partner should individually meet each eligibility norm. Item No. 8 of Part II specifically laid down that other things being equal, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and Widow will be given priority over others. It further provided that unmarried woman and widow will be provided a complete LPG godown, showroom, required delivery system, two telephones, clean toilet and working capital on 11 per cent interest. 12. By the very nature of the things, a widow will be at a disadvantageous position to arrange finance and to provide infrastructure and facility in comparison to a married woman for which 20 and 15 marks respectively have been allotted. Normally a widow is a handicapped person and exceptional cases apart she can never compete with a married woman in so far as the capability to arrange finance and capacity to provide infrastructure and facility is concerned. Appendix-N further shows that under the head personality, business-ability and salesmanship. 30 marks have been allotted. Here again a widow is likely to be put in a disadvantageous position in comparison to a married woman. The condition of a widow in this country is well known. Appendix-N further shows that under the head personality, business-ability and salesmanship. 30 marks have been allotted. Here again a widow is likely to be put in a disadvantageous position in comparison to a married woman. The condition of a widow in this country is well known. She has to face many problems including monetary problem in order to look after the children and maintain the family. On account of numerous problems faced by a widow, she is under a tremendous pressure and her personality is curbed. The criteria laid down by IOC on the basis of which the marks have to be allotted by the Dealer Selection Board is not only discordant with the criteria laid down by Central Government but is contrary to it. In fact the criteria for awarding marks is such which will always put a widow in a disadvantageous position. As mentioned earlier, the oil company is not at liberty to prescribe a criteria which is different from the one laid own by the Central Government. The selection conducted by the Selection Board is, therefore, vitiated on account of a wrong criteria adopted by it. 13. Dr. Padia for IOC has strenuously urged that a distributor of LPG has to carry on a business activity and, therefore, the best available person has to be selected for being given distributorship and the fact that the applicant is a widow cannot be a ground to show any preference unless she secures equal mark with a married woman. In our opinion, the contention raised has no substance. There is no denial of the fact that while giving distributorship of LPG or of other petroleum products, the Central Government has laid down a policy under which some distributorships have been reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, disabled persons and ex-army men. The Government in its wisdom has thought it proper to give a small number of such distributorships to the aforesaid category of persons and no exception can be taken to such a course of action. It is in conformity with the Constitution, the preamble of which mentions resolve of the people of India to secure all its citizens justice, social and economic and equality of status and of opportunity. It is in conformity with the Constitution, the preamble of which mentions resolve of the people of India to secure all its citizens justice, social and economic and equality of status and of opportunity. The policy decision of the Government to provide reservation for certain category of persons like handicapped persons or to those who are in disadvantageous position as against the vast majority is based upon sound principles and is in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. If the distributorship is to be allotted on commercial consideration alone, there is no justification at all for having a reservation for the women and it should be given to best available person, irrespective of his sex by taking into consideration the factors which are relevant only in a commercial venture. It may also be stated that not much of commercial enterprise is required in running a LPG agency. Cooking gas has become one of the most essential requirement of life next only to water and electricity, in fact it is virtually a service rendered by the State. A distributor has to supply gas to only those persons who have been assigned to his agency and have been given a consumer number by the oil company. The gas has to be supplied in a fixed quantity in cylinders which are again supplied by the oil company and at a fixed price which is determined by the Central Government. He is not at liberty to either vary the price of the cylinder or to supply gas to a person other than the one who has been specifically assigned to his agency. He is not required to either advertise the product which he is selling or to make any effort to increase its customers to generate more business. Everything is fixed either by the Central Government or by the oil company. The LPG distributor operates entirely in a seller market, as the demand is more than the supply. There is always a long waiting list of persons who are desirous of getting a gas connection. After one gets a gas connection, he only wants that a filled cylinder may be supplied soon after booking and it should contain the prescribed quantity of gas. Except where control of the authorities is tight-the cylinder is often not supplied promptly leading to a black market. After one gets a gas connection, he only wants that a filled cylinder may be supplied soon after booking and it should contain the prescribed quantity of gas. Except where control of the authorities is tight-the cylinder is often not supplied promptly leading to a black market. Shortage of cooking gas before some festival like Holi or Dewali is not uncommon. The consumers only want an honest distributor who goes by the rule and nothing more. Therefore, the contention that the best person should be selected as it is a commercial venture has hardly any substance at least in a case relating to LPG agency in the prevailing conditions. On the parity of reasoning, the marks allotted by the IOC under different heads for the purpose of holding interview cannot have any relevance in the type of the business, which is being carried on by a LPG distributor. 14. It appears that Central Government was conscious of the fact that a widow or an unmarried woman above 40 years of age without earning parents will not be in a position to arrange finance or to provide infrastructure and facility. Therefore, it laid down a policy that such category of distributors will be provided a complete LPG godown, showroom, required delivery system, two telephones and a clean toilet by the oil company. It further provided that the oil company will give working capital for full operation cycle, on which only 11% per annum interest would be charged. This will be clear from para 8 of Part II of the Eligibility Criteria which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. Therefore, the capability to arrange finance and the capability to provide infrastructure and facility cannot be a very relevant consideration so far as a widow or unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents are concerned. Consequently, the suitability of a widow applying in the aforesaid category should not be judged on these heads. This may be perfectly justified in judging the inter se suitability of candidates who do not fall in the aforesaid category, viz., a widow or unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents. According to the contention of the oil company, marks were awarded to all the candidates (including the petitioner who is a widow) under all the heads. According to the contention of the oil company, marks were awarded to all the candidates (including the petitioner who is a widow) under all the heads. This has clearly resulted in defeating the policy laid down by the Central Government. 15. Para 5 (b) of the eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government provides that no person shall be awarded a new distributorship if his spouse already holds a Letter of Intent or a dealership/distributorship of MS/HSD/Kerosene/LDO/LPG of any Public Sector Oil Company. In para 6 it is provided that the candidate should not have gross income of more than Rs. 2 lacs for the last financial year as specified in the advertisement and the income for this purpose will include that of self, spouse and dependent children. In para 7 it is provided that in case of partnership, each partner should individually meet each eligibility norm and if any of the partners is found ineligible, the applications of all the partners shall be rejected. It is note-worthy that even with regard to the co-operative society and corporations, the aforesaid criteria regarding holding of a dealership or distributorship is applicable. The only exceptions are corporations owned or controlled by the Government Public Sector undertakings. It is averred in para 15 to 22 of the writ petition that Sri Krishna Singh. husband of Smt. Neelam Singh respondent No. 6, owns a brick kiln since 1992 and had paid sales tax amounting to Rs. 72,996 for the period upto September, 1998. It is also averred that Sri Krishna Singh was having retail dealership of High Speed Diesel Oil and was also a whole-seller of kerosene. He was running an educational institution in the name of Don Bosco Convent School and owns more than 20 acres of agricultural land. It is further averred that Sri Bharat Singh brother of Sri Krishna Singh was an agent (whole-seller) of kerosene of Indian Oil Corporation and was carrying on the business in the name and style of Purvanchal Petroleum in Bansdeeh Sub-Division, Ballia. Sri Krishna Singh along with his brother was carrying coal business in the name and style of Shakhi Coal Traders. Japlinganj and Manohar Coal Depot in the city of Ballia. In para 22 it is averred that income of Sri Krishna Singh is more than Rs. Sri Krishna Singh along with his brother was carrying coal business in the name and style of Shakhi Coal Traders. Japlinganj and Manohar Coal Depot in the city of Ballia. In para 22 it is averred that income of Sri Krishna Singh is more than Rs. 5 lacs per annum and consequently respondent No. 6 did not meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government and was disqualified from being appointed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the IOC, the allegations made by the petitioner in paras 15 to 22 of the writ petition have not been controverted. The stand taken therein is that Srnt. Neelam Singh (respondent No. 6) in her application had not given any information about the said brick kiln business and that the details can be verified after investigation from her. The normal rule of pleading is that what is not specifically denied shall be deemed to have been admitted as correct. In fact Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. relating to written statement specifically provides so. The allegations made in the writ petition clearly show that the husband of respondent No. 6 owns substantial business from which he was getting an income of Rs. 5 lacs per annum and was also having dealership of High Speed Diesel and Kerosene of a Public Sector Oil Company, due to which she was disqualified in view of para 5 (b) of the eligibility criteria. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 6. It is admitted that her husband has a brick kiln for which the amount of sales-tax as alleged was paid. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that her husband was granted licence of petty retail sale of diesel in 1993 but he closed the business in 1996-97. The running of educational institution is also not disputed. In para 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that her husband's brother Bharat Singh was an agent of kerosene but her husband has no concern with the same- It may be Mentioned that clause 2 (b) of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order defines an agent and it means a person appointed by an oil company for distribution of kerosene through distributor or retail dealer and holding licence in Form III. An agent is a whole-seller who does not sell kerosene to public but only sales to distributors or retail dealers. An agent is a whole-seller who does not sell kerosene to public but only sales to distributors or retail dealers. The fact that the husband of respondent No. 6 was doing coal business is denied and it is asserted that his income was below Rs. 2 lacs in the year 1996-97. The counter-affidavit filed by IOC shows that it did not conduct any independent enquiry whether respondent No. 6 met the eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government and on the contrary, it blindly chose to rely on the information furnished by her. An applicant for appointment as a dealer or distributor of petroleum products may either deliberately give false information, or may conceal relevant facts or may give ambiguous or vague information to satisfy the requirement of the eligibility criteria. It is well known that business in petroleum products is a very profitable and convenient business and many persons are keen to get dealership or distributorship. It is. therefore. absolutely imperative for the IOC to ensure that the person who is appointed as dealer or distributor meets the requirement of eligibility criteria and this has to be done entirely on objective considerations The case in hand shows that the IOC did not at all make any effort to verify whether the respondent No. 6 satisfies the eligibility criteria or not and awarded distributorship to her by blindly accepting the information furnished by herein the application form. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No- 6 does not completely rule out the possibility that she did not meet the eligibility criteria and at any rate. It required enquiry regarding income and holding of dealership/distributorship of kerosene by her husband. The criteria laid down by the Central Government is not an empty formality and they must be strictly followed. If a person does not meet the requirement of criteria, he cannot be given a distributorship by the IOC. In our opinion, the action of the IOC in awarding distributorship to respondent No. 6 without holding any independent enquiry on the question whether she met the eligibility criteria or not is wholly illegal. 16. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , tenders were invited from "recognised IInd class Hoteliers having at least five years experience" for running a restaurant in the airport. 16. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , tenders were invited from "recognised IInd class Hoteliers having at least five years experience" for running a restaurant in the airport. The contract was awarded to a person having "ten years experience in catering to reputed commercial houses, banks and factories". It was held that the test of eligibility laid down was an objective test and not a subjective one and if a person did not have at least five years experience of running a IInd class hotel, he was not eligible to submit a tender. In para 10 of the report, the following principle was laid down : ".....It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them......" 17. Sri R. N. Singh has submitted that decision of the IOC to award distributorship to respondent No. 6 is a purely administrative decision and while exercising Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not sitting in an appeal over the said decision and as the decision has been taken on merits and there is no allegations of mala fide, the writ petition ought to be dismissed. We are fully conscious of the fact that in judicial review of an administration action, the Court is concerned with reviewing not merits of the decision, but the decision making process. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans. (1982) 3 All ER 141 at 154, it was observed as follows : "The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter, it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court." 18. In Ashbridge Investment Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965) 1 WLR 1320 , it was held that if the decision making body has gone wrong in its interpretation, its order can be set aside. In Ashbridge Investment Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965) 1 WLR 1320 , it was held that if the decision making body has gone wrong in its interpretation, its order can be set aside. In Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture 1968 AC 997 , It was held that if the decision making body is influenced by considerations which ought not to influence it or fails to take into account matters which it ought to take into account, the Court will interfere. Similarly in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission. 1969 (2) AC 147 , it was held that if the decision making body goes outside its powers or misconstrues the extent of its powers. the Court can interfere. In Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 , it was held as follows : "In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fair play in action." 19. In the case in hand, the IOC has awarded the distributorship to respondent No. 6 as she secured highest marks in the interview conducted by the Dealer Selection Board. The Selection Board awarded marks in different heads as discussed earlier. The judging of a widow under the head "capability to arrange finance" and "capability to provide infrastructure and facility" and then comparing her performance with a woman who is not a widow is contrary to the policy laid down by the Central Government. The assumption of IOC that priority is to be given to a widow over a woman who is not a widow only if both secured equal marks in the interview held in a manner discussed earlier again goes contrary to the policy of the Central Government. The IOC also committed a mistake in not getting an independent enquiry made to ascertain whether the respondent No. 6 satisfies the eligibility criteria for allotment of the distributorship which has to be done on objective consideration and in blindly relying upon the information furnished by her. The IOC also committed a mistake in not getting an independent enquiry made to ascertain whether the respondent No. 6 satisfies the eligibility criteria for allotment of the distributorship which has to be done on objective consideration and in blindly relying upon the information furnished by her. There has been a fundamental error in decision making process and, therefore, this Court will be justified in interfering with the decision taken by the IOC. 20. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The award of distributorship of the LPG at Maniyar, Ballia, in favour of respondent No. 6 is quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to hold an independent enquiry regarding the status of respondent No. 6 as to whether she meets the eligibility criteria laid down by the Central Government. The IOC is further directed to take a decision regarding allotment of distributorship after excluding the marks secured by the candidates under the heads-(i) capability to arrange finance and (ii) capability to provide infrastructure and facility while judging inter se suitability of a widow with a woman who is not a widow. The copy of the proceedings of the Oil Selection Board along with Appendix-N and N (1) produced by learned counsel for IOC at the time of hearing shall be kept on the record.