Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection/ appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as retail outlet dealer for S.K.O./L.D.O. at Brahmpur (Ramgarh), District-Buxar and further prayed to select/appoint him in their place. 2. The petitioners case, in brief, is that Indian Oil Corporation through an advertisement published in daily newspaper Hindustan on 31.10.1999 (Annexure-1) invited quotation from interested persons for outright sale/long term lease of their land at Brahmpur in the district of Buxar for the purpose of extending its business and pursuant to that petitioners father Sri Jagdish Pandey filed quotation before the Corporation to give his land on lease for a period of 30 years with an option of further renewal of 30 years after the expiry of the lease, which was accepted by the Corporation and thereafter on 31.12.1999 father of the petitioner handed over the possession of the land measuring about 9176 sq. ft. appertaining to khata No. 35, plot No. 438, Mauza-Ramgarh, Brahmpur, District-Buxar and registered deed of lease agreement was executed on 15.3.2000 between the parties. The Corporation after taking possession of the aforesaid land and constructing infrastructures for retail outlet published a re-advertisement in daily newspaper Hindustan on 1.9.200 (Annexure-4) for appointment of retail outlet dealers for different places including that of Brahmpur, District-Buxar. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement (Annexure-4) applied on 16.10.2000 or his appointment as retail outlet dealer being the son of the lessee. Thereafter the petitioner on being asked appeared before the Dealer Selection Board on 26.9.2001 for interview and produced all the original documents. Dealers Selection Board on 27.9.2001 published the result selecting/appointing Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as retail outlet dealer of S.K.O./L.D.O. at Brahmpur, District Buxar in preferential order, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that he having the lease hold right over the plot, under the policy of the company deserves preference in the Selection/appointment of retail outlet dealer at Brahmpur, District-Buxar. 3. A preliminary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation and its Officers (Respondent Nos. 3. A preliminary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation and its Officers (Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5) stating therein that the petitioners name is not in the list of merit panel of three candidates selected by Dealer Selection Board and after participation in the selection process the petitioner cannot challenge the selection/appointment of the candidates obtaining higher marks in absence of mala fide. It is further stated that the lands for retail outlet had already been procured in advance by the Corporation and as the location Brahmpur was A site any clause relating to preference in the advertisement is not applicable. The Respondents have also stated that L.O.I, has already been issued in favour of first empanelled candidate vide letter dated 8.11.2001 obviously after notice was given to the Respondent-Corporation and filing of the writ petition on 6.11.2001. 4. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit in which he has reiterated the mala fide against Dealer Selection Board and has alleged that selection/appointment of candidates has not been done in accordance with the advertisement published in the daily newspaper Hindustan on 1st September, 2000. As regards preference to be given in accordance with Clause (1) of the advertisement, it has been contended that there is nothing in the said clause that in case where land for retail outlet had already been procured in advance by the Corporation the preference would not be given to the candidate who had made available the land on long term lease. It is reasserted by him that the petitioner fulfills all the qualifications required under the advertisement and in addition, he is the only candidate who made available the land/site to the Corporation over which infrastructure has already been completed and the same is ready for functional at any moment. The petitioner has also stated that the Corporation ought not to have issued L.O.I. in favour of first empanelled candidate after getting knowledge about filing of the writ application. 5. The petitioner has also stated that the Corporation ought not to have issued L.O.I. in favour of first empanelled candidate after getting knowledge about filing of the writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there being no dispute on facts that father of the petitioner had handed over possession of the land to the Respondent-Corporation and over which the Corporation constructed infrastructure for retail outlet pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.9.2000 (Annexure-4), the action of the Dealer Selection Board in not giving preference to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the preferential clause, contained in the advertisement (Annexure-4). 6. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand submitted that selection has been done purely on merit and petitioners name does not find place in the list of merit panel of three candidates. Insofar as the preferential clause is concerned, he contended that the land for retail outlet had already been procured in advance by the Corporation and since location Brahmpur was A site, clause relating to preference in the advertisement is not applicable. 7. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of Mr. Jha There is nothing in the clause relating to preference in the advertisement that if the land is procured in advance right to claim preference shall not be available to such persons whose offer for providing the land is accepted earlier. It is true that the applicants were required to express their willingness for transfer of ownership or for entering into long term lease with the company of the land and such applicants were to be given preference provided the rate offered to the Company was accepted, and, further, that in case the applicant fails to make available the land within two months, the allotment of dealership shall be cancelled. But, there is nothing in the said clause that in case the land for retail outlet was offered earlier and the same was accepted by the Corporation, the preference would not be given to the candidate, whose land has been procured by such offer. The whole object is to give preference to those applicant who makes available/is ready to make available appropriate land for opening of retail outlet. The whole object is to give preference to those applicant who makes available/is ready to make available appropriate land for opening of retail outlet. It is not disputed by the Respondent-Corporation that the land for retail outlet had been made available by the father of the petitioner and upon which the Corporation completed the infrastructure. The Respondents have not even asserted that the candidature of the petitioner was in any manner inferior to other candidate. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that denial of giving preference to the petitioner in the matter of selection of candidate by the Dealer Selection Board and appointment of dealership by issuing L.O.I. after the Corporation was given notice of the writ petition and the writ petition was filed, cannot be said to be fair and proper. It is well settled that any action taken during the pendency of the writ petition is subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 8. Under such circumstances, writ application is allowed. The Respondent-Corporation is directed to cancel the L.O.I. issued after notice of this writ petition was given to them and refer the matter to the Dealer Selection Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law and as per the terms of the advertisement. However, it is made clear that the interest of allottee of dealership shall not be in any manner adversely affected for the period he/they have already functioned as per the aforementioned L.O.I.