JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral).:- The petitioner challenges the allotment made for retail outlet by the first respondent Corporation to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in preference to the petitioner. The petitioner would point out to assessments as regards two items, which if properly done, would rank him as number 1 over the claims of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. According to the learned counsel, the Corporation has awarded zero marks for fixed assets out of 4 marks when he actually owned property allotted to him by State Corporation for Rs.1.98 lacs and details of such allotment had been furnished along with the application. The award of zero marks was therefore not justified. Again award of 1.76 marks only towards income out of 4 was erroneous, for, it did not duly factor the income from agricultural lands which had been furnished by the J-forms issued by some traders that showed that the petitioner’s income was Rs.2 lacs from agricultural income. If the same had also been properly taken note of and marks assigned on that basis, he would have qualified as number 1, for, the difference between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were only in decimals. 2. In response to the contention of the petitioner, the Corporation would contend that along with the advertisement, guideline for selection issued through a brochure was also to form part of the instructions to applicants and as per the said guidelines issued and which were also available in the internet, the assessment to value of fixed assets shall be made on the basis of valuation report duly certified by government approved valuer in support of the assets. The report of the valuer as referred to as a necessary ingredient for assessment and a mere submission of sale deed or allotment letter would not suffice. The Corporation would state that even respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had submitted a document of purchase for Rs.13 lacs but they had also been awarded only zero marks since the valuation report had not been submitted. I do not think that it is going to be material for the petitioner to seek for allotment of marks only for him since the application of the same yardstick for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would make no difference in relative grading and the petitioner cannot obtain any favourable benefit. I do not think that it is going to be material for the petitioner to seek for allotment of marks only for him since the application of the same yardstick for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would make no difference in relative grading and the petitioner cannot obtain any favourable benefit. I am not therefore, examining the reasonableness or otherwise of the requirement of the valuation report in the case even where there was definite material to show the actual value through the document itself, but it would not have made any difference to the petitioner in view of the similar appraisal done for the successful candidates as well. 3. As regards the assessment of marks for the income stated, the counsel for the Corporation would point out that income tax returns filed by the petitioner had not referred to the alleged agricultural income in the statement of account. It is common knowledge that the income from agriculture although, not taxable under the I.T. Act will be reckoned for calculation of the total income for determination of slab of income on the basis of which the tax shall be calculated. The counsel for the respondents would also point out that form-J issued by the traders would only mean the reference to value of agricultural produce supplied and would not show income itself. I uphold the contention of the Corporation and hold that form-J by itself could not have been afforded proof of agricultural income. I do not find any error in the manner of assessment made and therefore the challenge made through the writ petition cannot survive for favourable consideration. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. ------------------