Judgment ( 1. ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the selection of the respondent no. 3 as Operator of Kisan Sewa Kendra (K. S. K.) of indian Oil Corporation at Jawa, district Rewa. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 25. 2. 2007 was published by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appointment of Operator of k. S. K. to sell diesel and lubricating oils. The advertisement inter alia includes the location of Jawa, Block Jawa, district Rewa, in the open category at s. no. 192. The petitioner had made an application in the prescribed form. The documents, which were enclosed by the petitioner along with the application, have been placed on record. The procedure for selection of the dealers is prescribed in the policy document issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, annexure P/l. ( 3. ) THE petitioner and other eligible candidates were called for the interview and after the interview the respondent no. 3 was selected for allotment of KSK and the petitioner was placed at s. no. 6 in the merit list. The petitioner made a representation dated 12. 7. 07 to the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the indian Oil Corporation raising his grievance against the selection. That representation was not decided, therefore, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 9030/2007 before this court which was disposed of by order dated 1. 8. 2007 with a direction that the petitioner may file a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Cell and such a complaint if filed would be decided within four weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the complaint annexure P/9 before the Grievance Redressal Cell, which was rejected by the order dated 20. 12. 2007, annexure P/10. Aggrieved with these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the grievance Redressal Cell annexure R/1-2 show that the petitioner got less marks during the evaluation since number of documents filed by him were not attested but at the same time the petitioners application was not rejected in the initial screening and he was called for interview which shows that the documents filed alongwith the application were found to be in order. He further submitted that in the policy there was no requirement of submitting attested copies of documents and such a requirement could not have been incorporated in the advertisement. He has also challenged the order of the Grievance Redressal Cell on the ground that it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is a non-speaking order. He has further challenged the award of less marks under the heading availability of Land on the ground that the land available with him which includes the land of his brother was more suitable. He further submitted that improper evaluation of marks was done by the Committee under different heads and the process which was adopted in the award of the public largess was not fair and transparent. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents had adopted fair and transparent process in the selection of KSK operators. Since the documents submitted by the petitioner were not attested as per the requirements of the advertisement, therefore, the same could not be considered while awarding marks. He further submitted that the marks under the heading availability of Land have been awarded keeping in view the nature of land offered by the respective parties and there is no flaw in the evaluation and award of marks under different heads. He has supported the order of the Grievance redressal Cell on the ground that it was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after following the requisite procedure. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 submitted that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court inasmuch as the order of the Grievance Redressal Cell is dated 20. 12. 2007 whereas the writ petition was filed on 27. 2. 2008 and in the meanwhile the respondent no. 3 had started the work at the site. She took loan and considerable progress was made by her, therefore, interference at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the respondent no. 3. She had filed caveat before this court but the petitioner obtained the interim order from this court suppressing the caveat. ( 7. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 8. 3. She had filed caveat before this court but the petitioner obtained the interim order from this court suppressing the caveat. ( 7. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 8. ) A policy document relating to the eligibility conditions and procedure for selection and appointment of dealers has been placed on record as annexure P/1. Clause 10 (d) of the policy requires submission of application forms along with the relevant enclosures complete in all respects before the due date. Clause 10 (e)requires the submission of original of the Affidavits and health certificate and copies of the other supporting documents with the application form. Clause 10 (i)provides that the application not accompanying valid documents, affidavits, etc. or incomplete in any respect will not be considered. In terms of clause 16 a candidate was required to produce the originals of the documents submitted by him with the application at the time of interview. Clause 17 of the policy deals with norms of evaluating the candidates and provides different heads and the marks assigned under those heads. ( 9. ) THE advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, annexure P/2, contained the general conditions and required the candidate to enclose the attested copies of all the papers / certificates along with the application form and to bring the originals of the papers / certificates at the time of interview. Clause 15 of the application form also required the candidates to submit certified photo-copy / attested copies of the certificates / documents along with the application form. It is not in dispute that the documents, which were submitted by the petitioner along with the application form, were not the attested documents. Annexure R/1 -2, which contains the findings of the Grievance Redressal Cell-, shows that the petitioner was not awarded marks on the basis of the documents which were unattested. ( 10. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was called for interview after screening of the application, which shows that no flaw was found in the application and the documents submitted by the petitioner. ( 11. ) THERE were certain documents which relate to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions and other which were relevant for evaluation of the marks under different heads at level 1. ( 11. ) THERE were certain documents which relate to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions and other which were relevant for evaluation of the marks under different heads at level 1. The petitioners application was not rejected under clause 10j of the policy since the application was complete in respect of eligibility conditions, but that would not absolve him from complying with the mandatory condition of submitting the attested documents. ( 12. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the policy, annexure p/1, does not require submission of attested copies of the documents, therefore, additional condition could not have been imposed in the advertisement de hors the policy document. Such an argument cannot be accepted. The policy, annexure p/1, and the advertisement, annexure P/2, both have been issued by the Indian Oil corporation. The incorporation of condition of submission of attested copies of the documents is not contrary to but in addition to the policy documents. The same Corporation, which had issued policy document, was competent to incorporate the additional condition while issuing the advertisement. It is worth noting that the application was submitted by the petitioner in response to the advertisement, therefore, the petitioner was required to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the advertisement. ( 13. ) SUCH an argument cannot be accepted also for the reason that the process of selection and award of marks disclosed in the reply shows that in level 1 selection marks are awarded out of the total 88 marks and level 2 selection which is the stage of interview marks are awarded out of 12 marks. The Screening at level 1 as well as at level 2 takes place by a Committee comprising of three officers. At level 1 the marks are awarded under the different heads mainly on the basis of the documents submitted by the candidates along with the application form. Therefore, the attestation of documents by the candidate becomes relevant. The issue relating to the compliance of condition concerning submission of the documents along with the application and the attestation of such documents and the mandatory nature of such condition had come up before this court at earlier occasion. ( 14. ) THIS court while considering similar issue in respect of the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in Manoj Joshi V. Indian Oil Corporation ltd. ( 14. ) THIS court while considering similar issue in respect of the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in Manoj Joshi V. Indian Oil Corporation ltd. and others, W. P. No. 4336/2007, in the order dated 16. 1. 2008 has taken the view that: "the pleadings of the writ petitioner contained in the writ petition would show that the factum of the petitioner having appended unattested copies of the document had not been disputed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has maintained that he had attached the unattested copies (though signed by himself) with an undertaking that he will produce the original at the time of interview. The reply of the respondent-Corporation also depicts that the only reason given by the corporation to reject the application of the petitioner was that the documents appended with the application were not attested. In these circumstances when the factum of appending the unattested documents is not even in dispute, then the petitioner cannot be heard to claim that no reasons have been given to reject his application". ( 15. ) THIS court while considering the issue of unattested photocopy of the medical certificate in the light of paragraphs 10 (e) and 10 (h) in the order dated 10. 11. 2007 in Manish Kumar Shukla V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another, passed in W. A. No. 695/2007 took the view that: "in our considered opinion, this arguments can not be accepted. Paragraph 10 (e) and 10 (h) operate in different fields. Paragraph 10 (h) refers to rejection of the application on availability of certain grounds, while paragraph 10 (e) says that any application, which is incomplete etc. would not be considered, which would mean that such application would not be entertained. Undisputedly, the medical certificate filed by the present appellant, though was a photo stat. copy of the original, but was not duly attested and if that be so, no wrong can be found with the order passed by the authority and by the learned Single Judge. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I. A. No. 16737/07 is also rejected". ( 16. ) THIS court in Pradeep Sharma V. Indian Oil Corporation and another, w. P. No. 3773/2007, considering the similar advertisement by order dated 10. 1. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I. A. No. 16737/07 is also rejected". ( 16. ) THIS court in Pradeep Sharma V. Indian Oil Corporation and another, w. P. No. 3773/2007, considering the similar advertisement by order dated 10. 1. 2008 took the view that no fault can be found if the mandate of advertisement is strictly followed and held that : "8. A perusal of the advertisement indicates that the requirement of the advertisement is to give a demand draft or pay order in the name of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the Senior divisional Manager is only a authorized to receive the applications. There is nothing in the advertisement to indicate that demand draft is also to be drawn in the name of Senior Divisional Manager. Petitioner may be right in contending that it was a mistake committed by him but the mistake has resulted in non-compliance with the requirement of the advertisement which entitles the respondent to reject the application. That being so, this court cannot interfere with the action of the respondent as respondent have strictly followed the mandate of the advertisement and has rejected the application of the petitioner finding non-compliance of the requirement prescribed in the advertisement". ( 17. ) SIMILARLY, in the writ petitions W. P. No. 9246/2006 and W. P. No. 7838/2006 while considering the similar advertisement this court has taken the view that submission of attested copies of documents along with the application form was a mandatory requirement. This court vide order dated 17. 10. 2006 passed in Krishna shekhar Singh V. Union of India and others, W. P. No. 9246/2006 took the view that: "it is thus, apparent that Gajendra Singh, infact, did not enclose attested copies of educational qualification certificate as proof along with his application form, which was a mandatory requirement". ( 18. ) SIMILARLY, this court in order dated 9. 4. 2007 passed iamanoj Tarwala V. Indian oil Corporation Ltd. and another, W. P. No. 7738/2006, took the view that: "it is thus apparent that petitioner did not enclose the attested copies of educational certificates as proof along with his application form, which was a mandatory requirement". Thus, while considering the similar advertisement this court has consistently taken the view that submission of the attested copies of the documents along with the application form is necessary and it is a mandatory requirement. Thus, while considering the similar advertisement this court has consistently taken the view that submission of the attested copies of the documents along with the application form is necessary and it is a mandatory requirement. ( 19. ) THUS no error has been committed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in denying marks to the petitioner on the basis of unattested documents. ( 20. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has further submitted that the land, which is available with the petitioner though includes the land of his brothers, but it is better suited then the land available with the respondent no. 3, therefore, error has (been committed in awarding less marks under the heading capability to provide I land. Under this heading-35 marks are there for Own Land and 25 marks in case of Firm Offer. It is the admitted position that the land offered by the petitioner was not own land, therefore, it would fall under firm offer and no error was committed in awarding less marks under the heading Capability to provide Land. ( 21. ) THE petitioner has also challenged the order of the Grievance Redressal cell on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Grievance Redressal Cell. Annexure R/1-1 filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 shows that on receipt of the petitioners complaint the Grievance Redressal Cell had sent a letter to the petitioner through the registered post asking him to submit details of the allegations and to substantiate the allegation with supporting documents within 30 days. Thus, apparently, that Grievance Redressal Cell had passed the order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. ( 22. ) THE grievance of the petitioner that the order of the Grievance Redressal cell is a non-speaking order is also not correct since the annexure R/1-2 filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 along with the return contains the details of the allegations, findings and remarks of the Grievance Redressal Cell. Adequate reasons have been assigned by the Grievance Redressal Cell for considering each of the nine allegations, which were made by the petitioner in the complaint before the Grievance Redressal Cell. ( 23. ) THE petitioner has also raised a challenge to the evaluation and award of marks by the respondents under the different heads. Adequate reasons have been assigned by the Grievance Redressal Cell for considering each of the nine allegations, which were made by the petitioner in the complaint before the Grievance Redressal Cell. ( 23. ) THE petitioner has also raised a challenge to the evaluation and award of marks by the respondents under the different heads. It is found that the evaluation was done and the marks were awarded under different heads by a Three Member committee. It is the settled law that the judicial review of the administrative action is limited to the decision-making process and merits of the decision fall outside the scope of judicial review. It is worth noting that no malafides have been alleged against the members of the selection committee. The Supreme Court in the matter of K. Vinod Kumar V S. Palanisamy and others, (2003)10 SCC 681 , has held that 7. The proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board must satisfy the requirements of a bona fide administrative decision arrived at in a fair manner. There are no mala fides alleged against the Dealer selection Board or the President or any Member thereof. There is no specific plea raised impugning the manner of marking. It appears that all the three members of the Board including the president conducted the proceedings, and each one of them gave marks expressing his own assessment of the merits of the applicants. The marks given by the three were then totalled and arranged in the order of merit. The appellant herein topped the list. In the absence of a particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for the Board to follow, no fault can be found with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the board. The Board is entrusted with the task of finding out the best suitable candidate and, so long as the power is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt its own procedure subject to satisfying the test of reasonableness and fairness. There is no averment that the procedure adopted by the Board was arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. ( 24. There is no averment that the procedure adopted by the Board was arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. ( 24. ) IT is also settled law that this court while exercising the jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal while examining challenge to administrative or quasi judicial decisions and interference is required only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action. In the present case no such unreasonableness of action is found in the action of the respondents. Supreme court in the matter of Haryana Financial Corporation and another V. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, (2002)3 SCC 496 , has held that: 10. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine is complementary to the principles of natural justice, which the quasijudicial authorities are bound to observe. It is true that the distinction between a quasi-judicial and the administrative action has become thin, as pointed out by this Court as far back as 1970 in A. K Kraipak v. Union of india [1969 (2) SCC 2621. Even so the extent of judicial scrutiny / judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi-judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have "a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold, differing opinions as to which is to be preferred". (As per Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for education and Science v. Metropolitan Borough Counsel of tameside (1977 AC 1014 ). The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the Court intervene. The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the Court intervene. In the present case, the decision of the dealer Selection Board is neither unfair or unreasonable. ( 25. ) THERE is also some delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition. The Grievance Redressal Cell had passed the order dated 20. 12. 2007. Thereafter, the letter of intent was issued to the respondent no. 3 on 5. 2. 2008 and the work of setting up the KSK was started by the respondent no. 3. It has also been stated by the respondent no. 3 that he took a loan of Rs. 4 Lacs at the rate of 10. 25% per annum from the Bank for setting up of the KSK but since the petitioner in the meanwhile approached this court and obtained an interim order dated 14. 3. 2008 restraining the respondent no. 3 from commencing the work of KSK, therefore, no further action could be taken by the respondents. The question of delay needs consideration keeping in mind facts of the case. ( 26. ) SUPREME court in the matter of Ramana Dayaram Shetty V. International airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , had refused to interfere after lapse of five month since the concerned respondent had in the meanwhile altered his position. The Supreme Court had held that: 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is difficult to understand why the appellant should have waited until 8th November, 1977 to file the writ petition when the tender of the 4th respondents was accepted as far back as 19th April, 1977. The explanation given by the appellant is that he was not aware of the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondents but that is a rather naive explanation which cannot be easily accepted. The explanation given by the appellant is that he was not aware of the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondents but that is a rather naive explanation which cannot be easily accepted. It is not possible to believe that the appellant who was so well connected with A. S. Irani and G. S. Irani did not know that A. S. Irani had failed to obtain the contract for running the restaurant and the snacks bars and that this contract had been awarded to the 4th respondents as a result of which A. S. Irani was being pressed to close down his restaurant and snack bars. We have grave doubts whether this writ petition was commenced by the appellant bona fide with a view to protecting his own interest. Moreover, the writ petition was filed by the appellant more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondents and during this period, the 4th respondents incurred considerable expenditure aggregating to about Rs. 1,25,000/- in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bars and in fact setup the snack bars and started running the same. It would now be most inequitous to set aside the contract of the 4th respondents at the instance of the appellant. The position would have been different if the appellant had filed the writ petition immediately after the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondents but the appellant allowed a period of over five months to elapse during which the 4th respondents altered their position. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not the fit case in which we should interfere and grant relief to the appellant in the exercise of our discretion under the Article 226 of the constitution. ( 27. ) IN the present case also respondent no. 3 had altered his position before the petitioner had approached this court. ( 28. ) IN view of the aforesaid I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.