JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.8.2006 under Annexure-11 withdrawing the letter of intent issued in her favour for the proposed retail outlet dealership at location Choudwar to Khuntuni. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short ‘The Corporation’) made an adver¬tisement for retail outlet dealership under the physically handi¬capped woman category vide advertisement dated 27.7.2004. The petitioner applied alongwith other six persons for the retail outlet on the side of the road from Choudwar to Khuntuni in the district of Cuttack. The applications were scrutinized and the applications of the three candidates were rejected on the ground that they did not meet the advertisement criteria. However, remaining four candidates including the petitioner were issued with interview call letters on 8/9th of November, 2004. Thereaf¬ter on 11.11.2004, the Selection Committee inspected the three plots offered by candidates. The 4th candidate namely, Smt. Puspashree Samantaray did not offer any plot. The land offered by Smt. Manjula Panda did not meet HNAI’s norms and was rejected by Land Inspection Committee. However, all the four candidates were called for the interview on 27.11.2004 before the Selection Committee. But out of four, only three candidates namely, the petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena, Smt. Manjula Panda and Sri Puspa¬shree Samantaray appeared in the interview. However, the 4th candidate namely Smt. Jamuna Khandual, who offered her land did not receive the interview call letter and, as such, she could not appear in the interview. However, the committee proceeded further and recommended the name of the petitioner and the Corporation finalized the retail outlet dealership in favour of the petition¬er and issued Letter of Intent. The Corporation, vide their letter dated 15.11.2004, issued letter of intent to the petition¬er and the petitioner completed all the formalities and deposited Rs. 2.00 lakhs towards security deposit. 3. On 28.1.2005, the Corporation moved the Collector-cum-District Magistrate for issuance of no objection certificate, which was issued by the Collector on 31.3.2006 under Annexure-9. It was also alleged that in the meantime the petitioner invested more than Rs. 41.00 lakhs in the said retail outlet by making certain modifications as per the direction of the Engineering Manager of the Corporation. On 28.1.2005, the Corporation moved the Collector-cum-District Magistrate for issuance of no objection certificate, which was issued by the Collector on 31.3.2006 under Annexure-9. It was also alleged that in the meantime the petitioner invested more than Rs. 41.00 lakhs in the said retail outlet by making certain modifications as per the direction of the Engineering Manager of the Corporation. Thereafter, however, when the peti¬tioner did not get any response, she filed a writ petition which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 9476 of 2006 in this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2006 with a direction to the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corpora¬tion Limited, to look into the grievance of the petitioner as made out in Annexure-10 to the writ petition and take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of the said order. However, after the said order, the Corporation has withdrawn the letter of intent on 14.8.2006. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. On perusal of the counter affidavit and the records produced by the Corporation by order of this Court dated 13.3.2007, it appears that the interview call letter dated 9.11.2004 was not received by Smt. Jamuna Khandual which was returned unserved which was not noticed and this has happened due to dispatch of the same by the office at a very late stage and there was no gap of fifteen days between the date of dispatch of the letter and the date of interview. It was dispatched on 16.11.2004 through Speed Post for the interview to be held on 27.11.2004. But the letter was received back unserved after two days from the date of interview i.e. 29.11.2007 for which Smt. Jamuna Khandual made a complaint and ultimately the matter was referred to the vigilance which came to the conclusion that letter of intent issued to the petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena be cancelled and fresh selection process be initiated and that the petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena was not at fault. 5. It is also to be noticed that the Selection Committee inspected the sites of the plots offered by the petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena as well as by Smt. Jamuna Khandual, who had not received her interview call letter. 5. It is also to be noticed that the Selection Committee inspected the sites of the plots offered by the petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena as well as by Smt. Jamuna Khandual, who had not received her interview call letter. The site was inspected in 11.11.2004 and the petitioner scored more marks in comparison to Smt. Jamuna Khandual towards land. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that there was no irregularity in the advertisement for the retail outlet in question. The applicants submitted their offers for providing land along with their de¬tails. The lands offered by the petitioner and Smt. Jamuna Khan¬dual were inspected and marks were allotted to both of them by the Selection Committee. The other candidates did not meet the norms. However, Smt. Pushpashree Samantaray also appeared in the interview but did not offer any land. The other candidate Smt. Manjula Panda was allotted much lesser marks. However, as she had not fulfilled the minimum requirement mentioned in the advertise¬ment, the Selection Committee rejected her candidature. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or alleged irregularity up to that stage. Therefore, in our opinion at the most the selection may be made from the stage calling the candidates for interview. 7. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no valid reason to make fresh advertisement by re-advertising the retail outlet dealership in question. The Selection Committee can cancel the interviews and re-interview the candidates or at the most re-visit the spot to make inspection of the lands offered afresh and allot marks again in case the Members of the Selection Committee are different to that of earlier. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction not to readvertise the retail outlet dealership in question. The competent authority may constitute a fresh Selection Committee or authorize the old Selection Committee at its discretion to make fresh selection in the light of the observations made above from the stage of calling the eligible candidates for interview including the person who did not attend the interview i.e. Smt. Jamuna Khandual. The competent authority may constitute a fresh Selection Committee or authorize the old Selection Committee at its discretion to make fresh selection in the light of the observations made above from the stage of calling the eligible candidates for interview including the person who did not attend the interview i.e. Smt. Jamuna Khandual. However, the competent authority will be at liberty to issue suitable directions in the facts and circum¬stances of the case and depute the Selection Committee in accord¬ance with the rules to make inspection of the lands offered by the candidates and award marks to them. But this will not be a compulsion on the competent authority. Needless to mention that the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to law for redressal of her grievance in case she feels aggrieved by the fresh selection. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SANJU PANDA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.