Judgment Anant S. Dave, J.—This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of oral judgment dated 21.04.2010 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3537 of 2010 by which prayer for issuance of direction to respondent – Indian Oil Corporation to issue a letter of intent for grant of retail outlet dealership [for short, “the outlet”] of the respondent Corporation at Palanpur in the State of Gujarat to the petitioner, who was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the list of successful selectees prepared by the Selection Committee of the respondent corporation, pursuant to the public advertisement issued by the Corporation in daily newspapers, as per guidelines issued by the respondent – Corporation, is refused. 2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts, as admitted by the respondent - IOC in its affidavit reply, are reproduced herein below: [1] An advertisement was released in Times of India, Ahmedabad, dated 31.07.2009, and Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad, dated 09.08.2009 for selection of dealers under SC/ST categories for Gujarat State. [2] No amendment / corrigendum was released after the advertisement. [3] The last date for receipt of application was 07.09.2009. [4] Palanpur, District Banaskantha, Gujarat, is one of the locations in the said advertisement under “SC” category. [5] Applications received by due date were scrutinized and eligible and ineligible applications were segregated as per procedure. [6] Selection process by way of nomination of Level-I / Level-II committees are governed by Policy Circular No. 90-10/2005(RO/6002) dated 10.01.2005. [7] Level-I committee awards marks to eligible applicants based on documents submitted along with the applications. There is no involvement / presence of applicants during in Level-I. [8] Level-II Committee personally interviews the candidates and declares the merit panel based on marks awarded by Level-I committee and marks secured during interview. Merit panel and marks secured by each candidate under various parameters are displayed at the venue of the interview on the same day of conclusion of personal interviews. [9] Out of the total eligible marks of 40 for SC/ST category dealer selection, 31 marks are for Level-I committee and balance 9 marks are for level-II committee. The minimum marks required for selection is 50% of total eligible marks. [10] Out of the total six locations advertised under ADO, after completion of Level-I markings, interviews were held for 5 locations during the period from 14 to 19.12.2009 at Ahmedabad Divisional Office. The minimum marks required for selection is 50% of total eligible marks. [10] Out of the total six locations advertised under ADO, after completion of Level-I markings, interviews were held for 5 locations during the period from 14 to 19.12.2009 at Ahmedabad Divisional Office. [11] For all the five locations, the Level-I committee was the same. Similarly, the nominated Level-II committee conducted interviews for all the five locations and declared the merit panel along with marks. [12] For the location Palanpur, the personal interviews were held on 16 & 17-12.2009 and the merit panel and marks were declared on 17.12.2009. The merit panel for the location is under:— [i] No. 1 – Smt. Geetaben Ganpatbhai Parmar [ii] No. 2 – Shri Kalpeshkumar Hiralal Vania [iii] No. 3 – Shri Jignesh Khemchandbhai Patel [13] As per procedure, with the approval of competent authority, FIR for the No. 1 candidate in the merit panel was carried out. In the meantime, the respondent received complaint / representation from the No. 2 candidate in the merit panel, Shri Kalpeshkumar Hiralal Vania, dated 24.12.2009 and 04.01.2010. As per procedure, complaints / representation was investigated by a senior officer nominated by competent authority. [14] The nominated officer investigated the complaints / representation after considering the same, vide approval Ref. G S O/RO/SC dated 22.01.2010, Executive Director – Gujarat State Office approved cancellation of the entire selection process and merit panel for the location Palanpur and to conduct re-interview for the location. 3. Learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties, grounds of challenge and defense raised therein. The following main contentions were raised by Learned Counsel for the petitioner:— [a] That once a selection process was completed, as per the guidelines issued by the respondent Corporation and a candidate is selected and placed at Sr. No. 1 at merit panel, cancellation of whole selection without affording opportunity of hearing to the selected candidate viz. the petitioner was contrary to principles of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner before taking such a decision. [b] No in-depth investigation was carried out by respondent Corporation and no statement of the petitioner was recorded. The above investigation was nothing but a camouflage to deny the petitioner grant of dealership for retail outlet. [b] No in-depth investigation was carried out by respondent Corporation and no statement of the petitioner was recorded. The above investigation was nothing but a camouflage to deny the petitioner grant of dealership for retail outlet. [c] There was uniformity by the Selection Committee for all 15 retail outlets for which dealership was awarded and only with a view to favour the candidate at Sr. No. 2, so-called investigation was carried out. [d] That as per the terms and conditions of the brochure guidelines, Clause 10(e) provided that, originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form duly signed. Further, policy circular No. 90-10/2005 issued by the Corporation provided evaluation for dealership selection procedure. Clause 5 of the said policy circular also mandated submission of attested copies of documents along with application and if any document submitted by the applicant without signing or attesting the same, such document was not to be considered by the Selection Committee Level-I and only zero marks was to be awarded in such a case. [e] Since there was deviation by respondent Corporation with regard to uniform applicability of the policy in the case of petitioner, such decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and required to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Corporation defended such action on the part of the respondent - Corporation. Learned Counsel placed heavy reliance on the advertisement for inviting applications and submitted that cancellation of entire selection process, preparation of merit panel and to conduct re-interview of the location had no consequence and to bring more transparency all eligible candidates were invited for interview. It was further contended that selectee had no right for awarding of dealership and discretion did vest with the respondent – Corporation. It was further contended that selectee had no right for awarding of dealership and discretion did vest with the respondent – Corporation. It was contended that as per the Clause 10(1) of advertisement, it was only an application and not an offer of dealership and further when a complaint was received in time from an aggrieved person, Corporation was duty bound to investigate it and the report was sent to Executive Director of Gujarat State, who formed an opinion that awarding of zero marks was prejudicial to all the candidates on the ground that it was not signed or attested and, therefore, decision of the Corporation was taken in overall interest of the candidates as well as the Corporation. Learned Counsel also emphasized that power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes and the tenderor or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in civil court in judicial review. In contractual matters, a writ court can only interfere only when process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide or intended to favour someone or whether the decision making process is irrational, arbitrary or the authority had no power to take such a decision or larger public interest is affected. 4. Learned Single Judge noticed the moot question before the court was to decide as to whether awarding of zero marks for the project report, when it was not signed by the candidate, was justified or not and on complaint being made by the aggrieved party, to cancel the select list is in violation of the policy framed by the IOC. The learned Single Judge also referred to Circular No. 90-10/2005 dated 10.10.2005 and ultimately found that various clauses of the policy circular give separate identification to the project report and it is different from the documents, which are referred to Clause 5 and this would lead to believe that when the project report is submitted as it is, it may not be required to be signed and if such a project report is not signed same shall not be considered as furnishing of an unsigned document. The reasonable belief of the candidate when he has submitted an unsigned project report that this being not a document meaning thereby not a copy of the original document, it is not required to be signed and when the Investigating Officer took the view that it is not justified to ignore such project report, which is not signed, the court should not interfere in such decision and with regard to cancellation of select list and discretion on the part of the Corporation that in case of awarding zero marks with regard to selection procedure adopted for outlets other than Palanpur there is nothing wrong if such selection lists were not cancelled by the respondent – Corporation. Learned Single Judge also considered that clauses of the circular had two parts, some of the clauses were substantive while others were procedural and even if a procedural aberration, which may not amount to error in re-assessment on investigation by the Investigating Officer or it may cause some prejudice to the petitioner there was no basis for accepting the allegation that the exercise was undertaken only with a view to favour the candidate at Sr. No. 2. The learned Single Judge after considering overall aspects of the matter and judgments of the Apex Court, dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant re-agitated grounds of challenge to the decision of IOC raised before the learned Single Judge and further vehemently submitted that the learned Judge erred in interpreting Clause 10(e) of the selection Policy as mentioned in the brochure, which mandated about attestation of the documents and the policy circular No. 90-10/2005 dated 10.10.2005 with regard to selection of petrol / diesel retail outlets, which was applied uniformly not only in the State of Gujarat but all over the country. It is further submitted that since one of the candidates, who was assigned zero marks, has not submitted attested project report, interpretation of policy to favour such candidate is contrary to the law. Besides, the report was not sent to the Head Office and if such an interpretation is to be advanced and to be believed for one outlet, it was incumbent upon the respondent to cancel the interview of all 15 locations / outlets and to re-interview all the candidates after assigning marks on the basis of the document though not attested by the candidates. Therefore, it is submitted that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequential order of the learned Single Judge also deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the respondent – Corporation, reiterated submissions made before the learned Single Judge and also drawn attention of this Court to the public advertisement issued in newspapers, detailed procedure followed by the Corporation, role of the Selection Committee at Levels I & II and further affidavits filed in this appeal and submitted that no error much less error of law appears in the oral judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, which calls for any interference by Appellate Bench and accordingly the appeal deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent extensively referred to the findings of learned Single Judge from Para 21 onwards of the impugned judgment and submitted that rejection of the writ petition is based on correct interpretation of clauses of circular and policies of the respondent – Corporation and by applying the law declared by the Apex Court in various decisions referred to in the impugned judgment, appeal be rejected. Learned advocate for the Respondent No. 3 accepted and adopted the submissions made by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 - Corporation. 7. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed an error while interpreting Clause 5 of the Circular No. 90-10/2005 and Clause 10(e) of brochure / guidelines for selection of petrol / diesel outlets, which mandated that self-attested copies of all other supporting documents should be submitted along with completed application form duly signed and also originals of the affidavits. For necessary reference, Clause 5 of Circular dated 10.10.2005 and Clause 10(e) of brochure / guidelines for selection of petrol/diesel outlets, are reproduced herein below: “5. The above marks will have to be awarded on the basis of attested copies of the documents submitted along with the application as original documents are to be brought by the candidates at the time of interview. All the documents enclosed with the application will be serially numbered and signed by each Level-I committee member” “10(e) Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form duly signed” 8. All the documents enclosed with the application will be serially numbered and signed by each Level-I committee member” “10(e) Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form duly signed” 8. Thus, the application to be submitted by the candidate is not only to be signed but copies of the documents submitted along with application are required to be attested. The word document is not to be interpreted in a narrow sense as it is understood ordinarily but it has wider connotation and any supporting material in the form of document along with originals of the affidavits were to be attested by a candidate. In the facts of this case, admittedly, private Respondent No. 3 has not attested its project report and awarding zero marks by the Selection Committee at Level-I could not have been interpreted as incorrect procedure adopted by the Committee inasmuch as the Committee had strictly adhered to plain, simple and natural interpretation of Clause 5 of circular dated 10.10.2005 and Clause 10(e) of the brochure / guidelines of the selection of petrol / diesel outlet. It is further evident that cancellation of selection is qua only Palanpur outlet, though similar procedure was followed by the IOC for other all 15 outlets, where zero marks was awarded in absence of attestation of documents, including project report, such a treatment of IOC in case of Palanpur outlet only would amount to clear cut discrimination with regard to application of the policy uniformly and will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and being discriminatory deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. By various orders, we have directed the respondent Corporation to produce on record application of 3rd respondent along with project report, but in spite of several opportunities given to respondent – Corporation, no such report was produced. Though we may not draw any adverse interference, but at the same time, respondent – IOC has failed to justify as to why discriminatory treatment was given to the appellant – petitioner, who was selected and placed at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list when nothing adverse was found against him. Though we may not draw any adverse interference, but at the same time, respondent – IOC has failed to justify as to why discriminatory treatment was given to the appellant – petitioner, who was selected and placed at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list when nothing adverse was found against him. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant was treated unfairly and unreasonably by the respondent, more particularly, by one of the Executive Director at Zonal level and the said action needs to be set right. The decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Single Judge with regard to power of judicial review in a contractual matter and law laid down therein by Their Lordships of the Apex Court, we are in respectful agreement, but in view of the facts stated and discussed by us in preceding Paragraphs, those decisions may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3537 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent – Corporation is directed to issue a letter of intent for grant of retail outlet dealership of the respondent-Corporation at Palanpur within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. With the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. P P P P P