ORDER R.M. DOSHIT, J. 1. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 27th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 14205 of 2010. The matter at issue is the grant of distributorship of L.P.G. cylinders by the appellant Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) in the town of Samastipur. Admittedly, the respondent did not sign the undertaking which was part of the application form. In view of the incomplete application made by the respondent, her application was rejected. The said action of the Corporation was challenged by the respondent in above CWJC No. 14205 of 2010. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the premise that although the petitioner had not signed the undertaking, she had put her signature on the said page of the application form. It was a sheer inadvertence that she did not sign the undertaking for that she cannot be penalised. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this Appeal. We have perused copy of the application made by the writ petitioner. It is evident that the applicant was required to sign at the bottom of every page of the application. The applicant was also required to give an undertaking in terms of paragraph-17. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to sign the application and also the undertaking in the prescribed form. In absence of her signature and the undertaking required to be given by the petitioner, in our opinion, the Corporation had rightly rejected her application as incomplete. The Court cannot presume that the petitioner had omitted to sign the application inadvertently or unintentionally. 2. The Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into the question of presence or absence of malice of malafides. Once the application was incomplete, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the said application without entering into the reasons for such omission or incomplete application. The Court exercising power of judicial review would not interfere in such administrative matters. The learned single Judge has committed an error in issuing the direction to the Corporation to consider the incomplete application made by the petitioner and to process the same. For the aforesaid reason, this Appeal is allowed. The Court exercising power of judicial review would not interfere in such administrative matters. The learned single Judge has committed an error in issuing the direction to the Corporation to consider the incomplete application made by the petitioner and to process the same. For the aforesaid reason, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 14205 of 2010 is set aside. CWJC No. 14205 of 2010 is rejected.