JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by M.L. Srivastava for the petitioner as well as Sri Tarun Verma, for the Indian Oil Corporation and perused the record. 2. The controversy involved in the writ petition relates to the allotment for the retail outlet dealership for petrol and diesel for the location Gaipura, District Mirzapur. An advertisement had been published in daily newspaper inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealership for various places in the State of U.P. and Uttranchal including the aforesaid location. The selection for the retail outlet dealership was to be made as per the brochure/guidelines dated 1.11.2004 providing exhaustive parameters for awarding marks and manner of selection of retail outlet dealership. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner nor any of her family members was owing petrol/diesel pump and having fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the advertisement, had applied for appointment as retail outlet dealer for location Gaipura, District Mirzapur. As per clause 14(1) of the brochure the technical/ commercial suitability of the land offered by the applicants for any location was to be ascertained by a team of Indian Oil Corporation officers before interview on the parameters given thereunder. The minimum qualifying marks was fixed as 75 for the plot of land. The applicant shall also secure 75% marks in the parameter “Sales Potential”. 4. It is submitted that the Site Selection Committee of the Indian Oil Corporation (in short IOC) visited the site of all the lands proposed by each applicant and after subjective and exhaustive assessment on all the parameters as envisaged in the brochure, awarded marks to all the applicants. 5. It is asserted that the Site Inspection Committee had found the petitioner’s land to be within the “Coverage Area” of the location Gaipura and accordingly awarded 91 marks to the petitioner. In fact when the aforesaid committee had visited the site for inspection the petitioner had an Agreement to Sale in her favour in respect to the land over which the petitioner had proposed to set up her petrol pump. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded less marks as she did not have a clear title in her name at that time. In fact when the aforesaid committee had visited the site for inspection the petitioner had an Agreement to Sale in her favour in respect to the land over which the petitioner had proposed to set up her petrol pump. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded less marks as she did not have a clear title in her name at that time. Thereafter when the petitioner’s land was approved by the Site Inspection Committee, the petitioner had got the sale-deed executed in her favour before the interview date and as such at the time of interview, she was having a clear title on the proposed land which she had offered to establish the petrol/diesel pump. In the interview 11 out of 12 applicants had appeared before the Interview Committee and the said committee had made the evaluation of the candidature of the applicants as per clause 16.1 of the brochure. Since the petitioner at the time of applying for the petrol/diesel pump was not having the sale-deed of the land in her favour and only an agreement to sale for the land, therefore, she was not given full marks but was awarded lessor marks under the heading of capability to provide land and infrastructure. However, on the basis of overall assessment the petitioner was ranked first amongst the 11 applicants in the selection, the result of which was declared on 3.8.2005. 6. One Smt. Anupama Tewari, one of the applicant for appointment of the retail outlet dealership for the aforesaid location was placed second in the result dated 3.8.2005. Smt. Anupama Tewari feeling aggrieved had filed writ petition No. 56461 of 2005 challenging the result dated 3.8.2005 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that if a complaint is made under clause-18 of the guidelines, the same shall be decided by the IOC within two months from the date on which the complaint is received by the IOC after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the advertisement it was provided that the appointment of retail outlet dealership is being made for “Specified locations mentioned therein or at nearby places”. At item No. 79 of the advertisement, the place mentioned was Gaipura, District Mirzapur. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the advertisement it was provided that the appointment of retail outlet dealership is being made for “Specified locations mentioned therein or at nearby places”. At item No. 79 of the advertisement, the place mentioned was Gaipura, District Mirzapur. The interpretation of the term “Specified locations mentioned therein or at nearby places” has to be made from clause 14.1 of the brochure. The word “near” or “Nikat” has neither been defined under the brochure nor any circular issued by the IOC and hence it is to be interpreted on the basis of the underlining philosophy and purpose of the scheme as envisaged in the brochure/guidelines. 8. Clause 14.1 of the brochure provides for the suitability of site offered by the applicants to be evaluated on the parameters given thereunder. Every land is to be assessed and marked against each parameters which are exhaustive. Evaluation is based purely on the subjective analysis of the suitability of land having Sale Potential, frontage, no earth filling, no rock cutting required, absence of trees, LT/HT over head Electricity and Telephone lines, proximity to culvert, type of soil, availability of power and water, visibility from road, absence of divider and outside Octroi limits. It is asserted that two committees i.e. the Site Inspection Committee and Selection Interview Committee had found the location of land offered by the petitioner fully suitable for establishment of the petrol/diesel pump and on the subjective and exhaustive assessment had placed the petitioner at serial No. 1 in the merit list, as such it is arbitrary and wrong on the part of IOC to say that the location offered by the petitioner is outside the purview of the coverage area of the location. 9. Mr. H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner asserts that the coverage area has neither been defined in the advertisement nor in the brochure/guidelines dated 1.11.2004. Moreover, the meaning of the term ‘near’ or ‘Nikat’ has not been defined by any circular of the IOC. 9. Mr. H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner asserts that the coverage area has neither been defined in the advertisement nor in the brochure/guidelines dated 1.11.2004. Moreover, the meaning of the term ‘near’ or ‘Nikat’ has not been defined by any circular of the IOC. His submission is that once the Site Inspection Committee and the Selection Interview Committee had recommended the candidature of the petitioner taking into consideration the said site offered by the petitioner for establishment of the petrol/diesel pump, the IOC authorities are not empowered to reject the said recommendations, more so while deciding the representation of the petitioner and cancel the entire selection in such arbitrary and illegal manner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact when after the selection, the letter of intent was not being issued to the petitioner, she had filed Writ Petition No. 11016 of 2006, Vindo Devi v. Union of India and others before this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 28.2.2006 was pleased to direct the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner. Since the order of the High Court was not being complied with, contempt petition No. 2413 of 2006 was filed against one Mr. Sharad Mesaram. Infuriated by the order passed in contempt petition, Mr. Sharad Mesaram, General Manager, IOC without affording any opportunity rejected the petitioner’s representation by passing the impugned order dated 13.6.2006 whereby the entire selection was cancelled and order for re-interview of all eligible applicants was made. 11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several examples where the allotment of retail outlet dealership for petrol/diesel pump have been made at the locations which are more than 3.5 kms. from the advertised site. The details of some of the examples are given in para 26 of he writ petition, as such it is manifestly wrong to say that the site offered by the petitioner is 3.6 kms from the location advertised by the IOC and therefore, it is outside the coverage area. 12. Mr. from the advertised site. The details of some of the examples are given in para 26 of he writ petition, as such it is manifestly wrong to say that the site offered by the petitioner is 3.6 kms from the location advertised by the IOC and therefore, it is outside the coverage area. 12. Mr. Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the IOC on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the land offered by the petitioner was found to be approximately 3.6 kms from the advertised location and 1.5 kms away from the last village Sarroi under Nyaya Panchayat Gaipura, hence it was outside the purview of the coverage area of the advertised location. He tried to justify the impugned order cancelling the selection and order for re-interview by saying that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as all the eligible candidates have been called for re-interview and fresh assessment would be made as per the policy of the corporation. Mr. Tarun Verma submitted that the order dated 13.6.2006 was passed in compliance of the orders passed in writ petitions filed by Smt. Anupama Tewari as well as the petitioner. 13. However, from the impugned order dated 13.6.2006 it is very much clear that the order dated 5.9.2005 passed in writ petition No. 56461 of 2005 Smt. Anupama Tewari v. Union of India and others, was not complied with in its letter and spirit. By our order dated 25.2.2010 we had directed the learned counsel for the IOC to file supplementary counter affidavit clearly explaining certain assertions made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit. The order dated 25.2.2010 is quoted below: “Sri Tarun Verma shall file supplementary counter affidavit clearly explaining the assertions made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit and shall also explain as to what the respondents meant by ‘coverage area’ and from the report filed alongwith the counter affidavit it is apparent that the land which was offered by the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 did not belong to them nor they were owner thereof nor were they willing to purchase the said land whereas the petitioner had an agreement to sale in her favour and thereafter she had obtained a sale deed also. Copy of the sale deed is annexure-5 to the writ petition. 5, 6 and 7 did not belong to them nor they were owner thereof nor were they willing to purchase the said land whereas the petitioner had an agreement to sale in her favour and thereafter she had obtained a sale deed also. Copy of the sale deed is annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the supplementary counter affidavit it shall also be stated that if a candidate has land of his own and other candidates does not have their own land, then who would be considered for allotment. The petitioner had a land of his own and her land was found suitable by the selection committee for allotment of retail outlet and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. This fact shall also be explained and the relevant guidelines shall also be filed.” 14. Mr. Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the IOC has filed a supplementary counter affidavit and has tried to explain the meaning of “Coverage Area” by submitting that the advertisement for setting up a retail outlet are published after ascertaining feasibility of locations. A location is commercially viable/feasible, depending upon its potential, which ultimately depends upon several factors like vehicular traffic and proximity to habitation etc. Since these factors are specific to each location, the term ‘vicinity’ or ‘near’ was used in the advertisement rather than strictly defining each location. On moving away from the location, potential of a site diminishes. He further submitted that the applicant not having a plot can obtain a written commitment (affidavit) from the land owner that if he is selected for dealership, the land would be made available to him and submit the same before I.O.C. The plot offered through this type of arrangement is termed as ‘Firm Offer’. The weightage for plots “owned” by a candidate is higher than the weightage for those proposed through a ‘Firm Offer’. Since the petitioner at the time of submitting her application was having agreement to sale only for the land offered by her, therefore, it was treated as a ‘firm offer’. However, the petitioner had got these plots transferred in her name by way of sale-deed subsequent to submitting her application but before interview. 15. In support of his submissions Mr. Since the petitioner at the time of submitting her application was having agreement to sale only for the land offered by her, therefore, it was treated as a ‘firm offer’. However, the petitioner had got these plots transferred in her name by way of sale-deed subsequent to submitting her application but before interview. 15. In support of his submissions Mr. Verma has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta v. Indian Oil Corporation passed in writ petition No. 4559 of 2010, wherein it has been held that in case advertisement has been made for a specific location and the land offered is not within the advertised location then the decision of the competent authority will not be interfered as it is not for this Court to re-appraise the evidence and to inter into facts. 16. In the present case the advertisement dated 28.4.2005, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition specify the locations for allotment of retail outlet dealership and it is provided that the allotment would be made on the specified locations or at the place “near” to the specified locations. The word “near” has not been specified anywhere. Since the case of the petitioner is that the location offered by her was near to the specific location i.e. Gaipura, therefore, the above said decision is not of much assistance to the learned counsel for the respondent. 17. It has been vehemently submitted by Mr. Verma that the petitioner is estopped from principle of promissory estoppel under Order-II Rule 2 of C.P.C. from raising any new plea, which she had not raised in her representation which was decided by the impugned order dated 13.6.2006. His submission is that all the pleas taken by the petitioner have been duly considered by the authorities while passing the order dated 13.6.2006 and it is not open for the petitioner to raise new plea at this stage while filing present writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner while filing writ petition No. 11016 of 2006 had confined her prayer only to get her representation decided which was decided, therefore, this petition is not maintainable on the principle of promissory estoppel. 18. Mr. It is further submitted that the petitioner while filing writ petition No. 11016 of 2006 had confined her prayer only to get her representation decided which was decided, therefore, this petition is not maintainable on the principle of promissory estoppel. 18. Mr. H.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner the authorities for the first time has taken the view that the proposed site, which was offered by the petitioner for establishment of petrol/diesel pump, is outside the purview of coverage area of location, therefore, the selection of the petitioner was wrongly made while deciding the representation of the petitioner. The IOC has cancelled the selection and ordered for re-interview, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the respondents have failed to justify the allotment of certain retail outlet dealership at the places situated at a distance of more than 3.5 kms from the advertised location, as mentioned in para 26 of the writ petition. He has further submitted that in spite of specific orders passed by this Court, the respondents have not disclosed the criteria to define the ‘coverage area’ or the word ‘near’. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the IOC has not yet re-interviewed the eligible applicants till date and the allotment of retail outlet dealership for petrol/diesel pump of the location Gaipura has not yet been finalised. 19. It is the admitted fact that the Site Inspection Committee had made inspection of the land offered by the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet dealership for the location Gaipura and had found it suitable and therefore, allotted marks to the petitioner. The petitioner after the inspection and before the interview had made considerable investment by getting the sale-deed executed in her favour. In the interview out of 11 candidates, the candidature of the petitioner was found to be most meritorious and she was placed at serial No. 1 in the select list. It appears that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were not having clear title over the lands which were offered by them. 20. In the interview out of 11 candidates, the candidature of the petitioner was found to be most meritorious and she was placed at serial No. 1 in the select list. It appears that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were not having clear title over the lands which were offered by them. 20. From the records as well as assertions made by the learned counsel for the parties it is very much clear that the word ‘near’ or ‘Nikat’ as mentioned in the advertisement has not been defined in the brochure/guidelines dated 1.11.2004, on the basis of which the selection for the retail outlet dealership in question was to be made. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to clarify the import of the word ‘coverage area of location’, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 13.6.2006. Therefore, the word ‘near’ or ‘coverage area’ has to be interpreted on the basis of the scheme as envisaged in the brochure/guidelines dated 1.11.2004. Clause 14.1 of the brochure provides for suitability of the site offered by the applicants to be evaluated on the parameters given thereunder. The land is to be assessed and marked against each parameter, which are exhaustive. Evaluation is to be based on purely subjective analysis of the suitability of the land having sale potential etc. Site Inspection Committee after making inspection of the land offered by the petitioner had found it to be suitable and viable. As such it is wrong on the part of the IOC to hold that since the land offered by the petitioner is approximately 3.6 kms from the advertised location Gaipura and 1.5 kms way from the last village Sarroi, under Nyaya Panchayat Gaipura, hence it is outside the purview of coverage area. 21. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioner that the land offered by the petitioner is situated at village Baripathak, tehsil Sadar, P.S. Jinga, Gram Panchayat Gaipura, District Mirzapur, which falls under the same Gram Panchayat, same police station, same tehsil and same district in which the specified location Gaipura falls. 22. No other point has been pressed by the counsel for the parties. 23. 22. No other point has been pressed by the counsel for the parties. 23. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.6.2006 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and cancelling the selection for appointment of retail outlet dealership for location Gaipura, District Mirzapur was wrong and not sustainable, hence it is liable to be quashed. The impugned order dated 13.6.2006 passed by General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 24. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to proceed in accordance with the selection, the result of which was declared on 3.8.2005 strictly in accordance with law. 25. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to cost. ————