JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — The petitioner in this writ petition chal¬lenges the action of opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 in selecting either opp. party No. 7 or opposite party No. 8 as dealer for the retail out-let of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Chhend in the district of Sundargarh. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in re¬sponse to an advertisement made in the local Oriya daily ‘the Sambad’ on 6.8.2000 inviting applications from eligible woman candidates for appointment as dealer for the retail out-let of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Chhend in the district of Sundargarh vide Annexure-1, the petitioner along with opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 and others applied for the same. According to the petitioner, she fulfilled the eligibility criteria stipulated in Annexure-1. It is also stated that she had taken a land on lease at Chhend for the purpose. The petitioner claims that she was not only more qualified than opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 but also had better marketing experience than the said opposite parties. As it appears from the allegations made in the writ petition, the selection committee constituted for the purpose on being influenced by certain political pressure and on irrelevant consideration had placed the petitioner in second position. Further it is stated that the entire selection was an out-come of irrelevant consideration and non-consideration of relevant fac¬tors and had been done by ignoring all norms of fairness and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the result of selection is liable to be set aside. 3. Opposite party No. 5, i.e. Dealer Selection Board, through it Chairman, has filed a counter affidavit form which it reveals that the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has framed certain Guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers/LPG distributors/SKO-LDO dealers, vide Annexure-A/5. Clause 3.10 of the said Guidelines lays down the procedure for evaluating inter se suitability of candidates and specific marks have been fixed on five different heads, as indi¬cated therein, having total marks of ‘100’. Each member of the Dealer Selection Board as per the aforesaid Guidelines has award¬ed marks under different heads out of the total marks of 100. Clause 3.10 of the said Guidelines lays down the procedure for evaluating inter se suitability of candidates and specific marks have been fixed on five different heads, as indi¬cated therein, having total marks of ‘100’. Each member of the Dealer Selection Board as per the aforesaid Guidelines has award¬ed marks under different heads out of the total marks of 100. According to this opposite party, the ultimate selection process is not in the hands of a single person or individual but it is a collective decision of all the members of the Board, which con¬sists of three members. A merit list of three candidates was prepared taking into consideration the marks awarded by the members of the Board to each candidate. 4. Shri R. K. Rath appearing for O.P. No. 5 further argues that there is no allegation in the writ petition if the decision-making authority in any manner either exceeded the power conferred on it or committed any error of law or there was any breach of rules of natural justice. 5. Shri A. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, apart from raising the question of locus standi on the part of the petitioner, contends that on completion of the inter¬view, the Board published the list of names of three successful candidates in order of merit in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 whereas O.P. No. 7-Smt Suryakanti Matagajasingh was placed at serial No. 1 and accordingly the name of O.P. No. 7 was recommended by the Board and not the name of O.P. No. 8-Jyotsna Samal, as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. According to these opposite parties, the petitioner is beating the bush by making misleading statements and ambiguous prayers to quash the selection of O.P. Nos. 7 and 8. According to them, the contents of the writ petition are full of wrong narration of facts for which the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 6. Shri R. K. Rath has produced the relevant record relat¬ing to the proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board which tran¬spires that Smt. Suryakanti Matagajasingh ranked first, the present petitioner ranked second and O.P. No. 6 ranked third. 6. Shri R. K. Rath has produced the relevant record relat¬ing to the proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board which tran¬spires that Smt. Suryakanti Matagajasingh ranked first, the present petitioner ranked second and O.P. No. 6 ranked third. It further appears therefrom that each of the three members of the Board awarded marks in the interview to the candidates on differ¬ent heads, namely, (a) personality, business ability and sales¬manship, (b) capability to arrange finances, (e) educational qualification and general level of intelligence, (d) capability to provide infrastructure and facilities (land, godown, showroom, etc.) and (e) general assessment. The three members of the Board independently assessed the candidates and awarded marks independ¬ently and taking into account the marks awarded on different heads, the Board found O.P. No. 7 to be the suitable candidate for awarding the retail out-let in question. It is also contended that appointment of retail out-let dealer for a public limited undertaking is essentially a commercial transaction and in order to arrive at a final decision the paramount considerations are the commercial considerations. So far as the question of exercising the power of judicial review is concerned, it is well settled that the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality and its concern should be : (1) whether a decision-making authority exceeded its power; (ii) committed an error of law; (iii) commit¬ted a breach of the rules of natural justice; (iv) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached; or (v) abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the Court to deter¬mine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. (See AIR 1996 SC 11 : Tata Cellular v. Union of India). 7. In the present case, the petitioner has alleged mala fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness etc. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. (See AIR 1996 SC 11 : Tata Cellular v. Union of India). 7. In the present case, the petitioner has alleged mala fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness etc. against the decision making authority, but there is nothing on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner so as to encompass the same within the aforesaid pre-requisites fixed by the apex Court in Tata Cellular’s case (supra) in order that this Court can interfere with the decision taken by the opposite parties in exercise of its power of judicial review, Added to this, on a thorough and diligent scanning of the record produced by O.P. No. 5, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision making process warranting inter¬ference by this Court. 8. In the above view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.