JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the short-listed candidates for Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to IOC) at Goh in the district of Aurangabad. Petitioner has alleged that a deliberate mischief has been played in matter of land verification to help respondent No. 4, the selected candidate. 2. An advertisement was published on 7th December, 2005 in the Hindi newspaper known as "Dainik Jagaran". The advertisement was for inviting applications from all such eligible candidates for being appointed as a dealer of what is known as Kisan Sewa Kendra by IOC. The advertisement indicated various sites across the State and in the present case the issue is selection of a dealer at Goh, in the district of Aurangabad. Petitioner was one of the applicants who had applied. There are certain settled guidelines for the selection process. There are detailed parameters for which marks are awarded to the short-listed candidates which basically indicates as to the suitability as well as the best location from the point of view of commercial angle of the company. Besides technical qualifications, experience, financial capability, land is an important factor for deciding the suitability of a candidate and the infrastructure which he/she can make available. The brochure and the guidelines have been brought on record as annexure-3 and therefore other details may not be dealt with extensively. The reason for filing the present writ applications is because the petitioner claims that she has been deliberately elbowed out from the selection by the respondents to help respondent No. 4 at her cost. Petitioner has also brought on record the final marks awarded to various candidates and the selection made thereto by the selection board at annexure-7. 3. Petitioner states that respondent authorities of the IOC did not inform her of the date and time when the land in question offered by her was to be inspected and what ever was done was done behind her back. She had offered two lands but none of them were arbitrarily considered fit by the respondent authorities and it was for this reason that she was allotted zero marks under the head of land or capability to provide infrastructure. Even under the hand of experience she was given zero marks. All this weighed against the petitioner in final selection. 4. She had offered two lands but none of them were arbitrarily considered fit by the respondent authorities and it was for this reason that she was allotted zero marks under the head of land or capability to provide infrastructure. Even under the hand of experience she was given zero marks. All this weighed against the petitioner in final selection. 4. The Court directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit and explain the position. Counter affidavit came to be filed by the official respondent IOC as well as respondent No. 4 the private respondent. 5. Learned Counsel representing IOC submits that evaluation made by the dealership selection committee was strictly in accordance with the material available before them and none of the official respondents have any personal motive or interest in the matter. The selection body is an independent body which has been entrusted with the task of finding out the best suitable candidates and power exercised by them in this regard is reasonable and fair with the sole object of finding a person and location in the commercial interest of the company. They categorically sate that though initially the minimum plot size required for a Kisan Sewa Kendra was 20 x 15 metres but the same was revised to 20 x 20 metres vide Policy decision taken on 19.12.2005. Since on spot verification the lands in question offered by the petitioner were less than the specification, therefore, the same was not found to be suitable by the company and based on the same the requisite marks were allotted. It is not disputed that the so-called two plots of land offered by the petitioner even according to her averments made in para 10 of the rejoinder was less than 20 x 20 metres. The stand of the official respondent is that due information was given to the petitioner about the inspection. The inspection was done in presence of family members of the petitioner and the finding was duly communicated to the selection board for taking a final decision vis-a-vis petitioner and other candidates. It is also urged on behalf of the respondents that no other candidates have made a case that they were not aware of the fact that minimum size of the land for retail outlet is 20 x 20 metres. All the allegations are made after petitioner failed to qualify. 6. It is also urged on behalf of the respondents that no other candidates have made a case that they were not aware of the fact that minimum size of the land for retail outlet is 20 x 20 metres. All the allegations are made after petitioner failed to qualify. 6. Learned Counsel representing respondent No. 4 provides some more facts in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf. He states before the court that there is deliberate misleading statement made in the application filed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to availability of land. He categorically states that officers of the IOC visited all the sites including that of the petitioner on 23.1.2006. The matter was examined from the view of technical and commercial suitability of the land. At the time of measurement of the land of the petitioner, one Saurabh Kumar and Ashok Kumar were present. It is further stated that the petitioner has rightly been given no marks. The evaluation made by the IOC officials was done with the sole object of identifying the best location in the interest of the company and the allegation that the officials had intentionally helped the respondent is totally misplaced. Respondent No. 4 states that the petitioner was interested in the present dealership because there is yet another petrol pump in the name of Kumar Service Station owned by the members of her family and she did not want another competitor in the area. 7. Litigations of such kind in matters of selection of dealership have traveled to this Court as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court on many occasions on many a grounds. But the Courts have been of the consistent opinion that in matters of grant of dealership of retail outlet merely because the petitioner claims himself or herself to be best suited the Court will not sit in appeal or make a comparative analysis of selected candidates. The company made selection on the basis of their commercial interest and there is no occasion for the Court to substitute its wisdom unless an aggrieved person points out any major irregularity in the decision making process. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was not aware that what was the minimum requirements with regard to area of the plot of land since the company effected change in its policy at subsequent stage. 9. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was not aware that what was the minimum requirements with regard to area of the plot of land since the company effected change in its policy at subsequent stage. 9. The Court is not impressed by such a decision because the area of the plot of land and decision taken by the company in terms of Annexure-A has been unilaterally applied. Even according to the petitioner two plots of land offered by her do not make the specification. The Court gets a feeling that other allegation of wrong doing by the company of helping private respondent is more of an after-a-thought not based on any substantial material or evidence available on record. Even on a plain analysis of annexure-7, the marks given to the various candidates by the selection board reflects the actual state based on basic inputs furnished by the petitioner and other candidates. Ground of lack of knowledge of the size of the plot will not compel this Court to interfere with the selection process. 10. This Court does not find anything arbitrary or illegal with regard to the selection process of Kisan Sewa Kendra in question. 11. The application has no merit and it is dismissed.