Judgment : The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the action of respondent No.2, who has reduced the marks allotted to the petitioner in respect of go down and show room, suffers from any illegality or arbitrariness. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner applied to respondent No.1-Corporation in pursuance of the advertisement issued by it for appointment as LPG dealer for Nandyal Town. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and various others have also applied for the dealership. The L-1 Committee constituted by respondent No.1 has prepared a merit panel, according to which the petitioner was shown at serial No.1 by awarding marks of 96.27. Respondent No.3 was shown at serial No.2 with 90.3 marks. Feeling aggrieved by the said merit list, respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.26290 of 2009. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after detailed consideration of the case, allowed the writ petition by order, dated 25.08.2010, whereunder it was declared that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in selecting the petitioner herein (respondent No.3 in the said writ petition) and empanelling her as candidate No.1 as arbitrary and illegal and the selection of the petitioner herein was accordingly set aside with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to proceed with the selection process and appoint the Distributorship among other empanelled candidates following due process of law. The main ground on which the learned Judge has disqualified the petitioner herein was that she has not furnished correct information as regards the ownership of the showroom and the go down. Assailing the said order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal N.836 of 2010, which was disposed of by a Divisional Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, without considering the merits of the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, took the view that it is desirable to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the cases of both the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein afresh without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Subsequent to the disposal of the said Writ Appeal, field verification was undertaken on 01.08.2012 and the merit panel was appropriately revised. As per the revised merit panel, the re-constituted Committee has reduced the marks for go down from ‘25’ to ‘18’ and that for show room from ‘10’ to ‘7’, in case of the petitioner. Subsequent to the disposal of the said Writ Appeal, field verification was undertaken on 01.08.2012 and the merit panel was appropriately revised. As per the revised merit panel, the re-constituted Committee has reduced the marks for go down from ‘25’ to ‘18’ and that for show room from ‘10’ to ‘7’, in case of the petitioner. As a result of the said revision, the petitioner was relegated to serial No.5 with 86.27 marks. Resultantly, respondent No.3 has come up to serial No.1 position. Questioning this action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner filed this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Corporation has committed a serious illegality in reducing the marks both in respect of the show room and godown. The learned counsel submitted that even though the petitioner was holding a general power of attorney as on the date of making the application, before the date of inspection itself, she obtained a sale deed and got it registered on 17.09.2009. He has accordingly submitted that the Corporation ought not to have reduced the marks from ‘25’ to ‘18’ ignoring the sale deed. He has also questioned the propriety of the Corporation in reducing the marks for show room only on the ground that the gift deed was not registered. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submitted that the Corporation has prepared a brochure containing the guidelines, that under Clause 14.2 of the guidelines, L-1 Committee will allocate marks based on the information given in the applications and that accordingly marks were allocated to the applicants only based on the information given in the applications. He submitted that during the field verification, it came to light that the petitioner was not holding registered gift deed in respect of the show room and registered sale deed in respect of the go down. Therefore, the offer made by the petitioner was only treated as firm offer as on the date of the application and the marks were accordingly reduced in terms of Clause 14.2 of the guidelines. Therefore, the offer made by the petitioner was only treated as firm offer as on the date of the application and the marks were accordingly reduced in terms of Clause 14.2 of the guidelines. He further submitted that subsequent registration of the sale deed in respect of the go down is not a factor which can be taken into consideration, as the Corporation considers the applications on the basis of the status of the applicants with reference to the various parameters as on the date of applications. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, while supporting the submissions of Sri O.Manohar Reddy, further submitted that indeed deduction of marks in respect of both the go down and show room is not in accordance with Clause 14.2 of the guidelines and that at best the Corporation ought to have treated the petitioner’s offer for the go down and the show room under the head “or can arrange” and awarded lesser marks. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that even assuming that the Corporation is justified in treating the petitioner’s offer as a firm offer, in the absence of the registered sale deed and the gift deed as on the date of application, the petitioner was not entitled to full marks as was awarded before the field verification. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not hold a registered gift deed. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mandates that for the purpose of making a gift of property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by atleast two witnesses. Under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 no document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein or confer any power to adopt or to be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. In view of the above-mentioned peremptory statutory provisions, the alleged notarised gift deed, which is admittedly unregistered, is not a document in the eye of law and the same did not pass title in the property to the petitioner. In view of the above-mentioned peremptory statutory provisions, the alleged notarised gift deed, which is admittedly unregistered, is not a document in the eye of law and the same did not pass title in the property to the petitioner. In stricto sensu, the Corporation ought not to have taken such document into consideration at all. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3, at best the Corporation ought to have treated the petitioner’s offer under the head “or can arrange”, which qualifies for five marks. In any event, the petitioner is not entitled to award of more than seven marks in respect of show room even if the unregistered gift deed is treated as the basis for firm offer. With regard to the go down, it is not in dispute that as on the date of application, the petitioner did not hold registered sale deed. She was only holding a general power of attorney in respect of the property offered for construction of go down. It is also not in dispute that the criteria for award of marks is the information furnished by the applicants in their applications. This being the position, the field verification is only with respect to the information already furnished by the applicants and the question of the inspection team taking into consideration the fresh material coming into existence after filing of the applications does not arise. On the petitioner’s own showing she has got the sale deed registered on 17.09.2009 i.e., a few days before the field verification was to take place. Hence, the Corporation was justified in reducing the marks from ‘25’ to ‘18’ in the absence of registered sale deed in respect of the property offered as go down by the petitioner by treating the offer of the land as “firm offer”. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a feeble contention with regard to the ineligibility of respondent No.3 in view of the appointment of her husband as dealer in respect of the same area. Both the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Senior Counsel, however, stated that the appointment of the husband of respondent No.3 has taken place after the selection of respondent No.3 and that therefore her selection is not affected by the selection of her husband. This aspect has not been further pursued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Senior Counsel, however, stated that the appointment of the husband of respondent No.3 has taken place after the selection of respondent No.3 and that therefore her selection is not affected by the selection of her husband. This aspect has not been further pursued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, there is no need for any specific finding on the same. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 05.10.2012, extended from time to time, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.39679 of 2012 and W.V.M.P.No.3995 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.