R.M. DOSHIT, CJ.:–These two Appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from the judgment and order dated 29th September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1845 of 2011 has been preferred by the respondent no.5 in the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1916 of 2011 is preferred by the writ petitioner. 2. The subject matter of dispute is the allotment of the dealership for the retail outlet of petroleum by the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). On 30th May 2010, the Corporation published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for grant of dealership for the petroleum/diesel retail outlet at various locations in the State of Bihar. Pursuant to the said advertisement both the appellants applied for such dealership at Areraj in the district of East Champaran. After following the selection procedure detailed in its brochure dated 15th September 2008, the Corporation prepared a merit panel of two selected applicants on 30th December 2010. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1845 of 2011 was the first on that panel. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1916 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’) was second in the said panel. 3. Feeling aggrieved by his second position in the panel, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No. 6125 of 2011. The challenge was of two fold. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was wrongly refused four marks under the head ‘Fixed and Movable Assets’. Had the ‘Fixed and Movable Assets’ of the writ petitioner been correctly assessed; had he been given the four marks allotted under the head ‘Fixed and Movable Assets’, the writ petitioner would have been first on the panel. In that case he would be entitled to allotment of dealership for the retail outlet. Second; the contesting respondent-appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1845 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) was not qualified for the dealership for the retail outlet for he had failed to produce required ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Magistrate in respect of the land offered for the retail outlet. 4. The petition was contested by the appellant and the Corporation. According to the appellant, the land offered by the appellant was not the disputed land. 4. The petition was contested by the appellant and the Corporation. According to the appellant, the land offered by the appellant was not the disputed land. The District Magistrate had wrongly refused to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ in respect of the land offered on the premise that the said land was subject matter of dispute in a matter pending before the civil Court. In any view of the matter, on account of the subsequent events the said land is not a matter of dispute anymore. The corporation supported the appellant. 5. The learned single Judge having considered the rival contentions upheld the decision of the Corporation in respect of the allotment of marks to the writ petitioner including the marks under the head ‘Fixed and Movable Assets’. The learned single Judge, however, held that the appellant had failed to produce the required ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Magistrate. The matter being subjudice, the allotment of the dealership for the retail outlet cannot be postponed for indefinite period. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge has directed that the dealership for the said retail outlet be advertised again and the allotment be made after following due process. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.5 has preferred above Letters Patent Appeal No.1845 of 2011. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the land offered by the appellant is subject matter of dispute and that the dealership for the retail outlet at the given location cannot be awarded to him. Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain has submitted that the dispute in question is instigated. He has submitted that a Title Suit No.236 of 1987 in respect of the disputed land was filed in the civil Court at Motihari and was dismissed on 27th June 1990. The said matter was not carried further. The said judgment has, thus, achieved finality. The appellant having a lease-hold right in the disputed land, he was not a party to the said Title Suit. 17 years thereafter, the very plaintiff has instituted Partition Suit No.6/2007 in respect of the said land and the other properties. Obviously, the appellant was not a party to the said suit. The said judgment has, thus, achieved finality. The appellant having a lease-hold right in the disputed land, he was not a party to the said Title Suit. 17 years thereafter, the very plaintiff has instituted Partition Suit No.6/2007 in respect of the said land and the other properties. Obviously, the appellant was not a party to the said suit. After the appellant was selected for dealership for the retail outlet on 30th December 2010, the appellant was impleaded as a party-defendant in the pending Partition Suit No.6/2007 by order dated 4th February 2011 of the civil Court. Thus, until the appellant was selected for the dealership for the retail outlet he was not a party to the legal proceeding. Since then the plaintiff has amended the plaint and has given-up his claim over the disputed land. Thus, as on date no dispute is pending in respect of the land in question. The appellant, therefore, should be allowed to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Magistrate, on production of which the Corporation will grant the dealership for the retail outlet at the given location. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh has appeared for the Corporation. He has wholeheartedly supported the appellant. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner has preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal No.1916 of 2011. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the learned single Judge has wrongly upheld the decision of the Corporation in not awarding four marks to the writ petitioner under the head ‘Fixed and Movable Assets’. He has next submitted that now that the appellant is disqualified on account of his failure to submit the ‘No Objection Certificate’ in respect of the land in question, as per the policy of the Corporation, the writ petitioner being second on the panel, the dealership should be awarded to the writ petitioner. 11. In respect of the selection for dealership, the Corporation has issued a brochure on 15th September 2008. The said brochure contains various provisions governing the grant of dealership for the retail outlet and the procedure and evaluation for selection. Paragraph 13 of the said brochure provides for evaluation of the applications. The selection is made on various parameters. A total of 100 marks are allotted for the said selection process. The said brochure contains various provisions governing the grant of dealership for the retail outlet and the procedure and evaluation for selection. Paragraph 13 of the said brochure provides for evaluation of the applications. The selection is made on various parameters. A total of 100 marks are allotted for the said selection process. The panel is prepared in order of the marks obtained at evaluation. In the present case, the appellant has been awarded a total of 78.04 marks, whereas the writ petitioner has been awarded 77.76 marks. Thus, the appellant has been placed above the writ petitioner. 12. We do not suppose that in exercise of power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, we should be sitting in appeal over the marks given by the Corporation under various heads to unsettle the panel prepared by the Corporation. Moreover, the learned single Judge has examined the marks given to each, the appellant and the writ petitioner. Neither the learned single Judge has interfered with the merit panel; nor do we propose to interfere with the said panel. 13. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not been able to submit the ‘No Objection Certificate’ in respect of the land in question. It is evident that in view of the pending litigation the District Magistrate at first, on 11th July 2011 refused to grant the ‘No Objection Certificate’. However, later he modified his decision. Under corrigendum dated 16th July 2011, he stated that the ‘No Objection Certificate’ was refused ‘for the present’. In other words, he kept it open for the appellant to apply again for the ‘No Objection Certificate’. In that case the District Magistrate may issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’. 14. While considering the present matter we are not required to consider the judicial proceeding pending in respect of the land in question. We are not required to decide whether the aforesaid Partition Suit is maintainable or not; or that the appellant was a necessary or a proper party to the said suit; or whether the land in question was rightly made subject matter of that suit. We have to consider whether the appellant, without submitting the required ‘No Objection Certificate’, can be granted the dealership for the retail outlet. 15. The learned counsels have relied upon the various provisions made in the aforesaid brochure. Mr. We have to consider whether the appellant, without submitting the required ‘No Objection Certificate’, can be granted the dealership for the retail outlet. 15. The learned counsels have relied upon the various provisions made in the aforesaid brochure. Mr. Sanjay Singh appearing for the Corporation has particularly relied upon paragraph 16(c). He submitted that a panel prepared after due selection process shall be valid for one year from the date of commissioning of the dealership. In the present case the dealership is not yet granted; it is not yet commissioned, the panel is, therefore, still subsisting and can be operated. 16. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V.Giri has relied upon paragraph 16(b) of the brochure. He has submitted that the said Clause (b) specifically empowers the Corporation, in case the no.1 candidate is not found suitable or the no.1 candidate fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the dealership or the dealership is withdrawn or cancelled, to award the dealership to the next candidate in the merit panel. He has submitted that in the present case the dealership for the retail outlet cannot be granted to the appellant for his failure to submit the required ‘No Objection Certificate’. The dealership should automatically fall on the writ petitioner. Mr. Giri has also relied upon paragraph 19 of the brochure. He has submitted that Clause (ii) of paragraph 19(b) provides that in case of cancellation of the selection of the first empanelled candidate, the letter of intent be issued in favour of the next candidate on the merit panel. He has submitted that in view of the aforesaid clear provisions, the writ petitioner being second on the merit panel, the dealership should automatically be offered to the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge has erred in ignoring the aforesaid provisions and in directing to commence the process anew. 17. Undoubtedly, the brochure does provide for award of the dealership for the retail outlet to the candidate second in the merit panel in case the candidate first on the merit panel is not awarded the dealership for the retail outlet for any reason. 18. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the process for selection for the dealership of the retail outlet was commenced in the month of May 2010 that culminated into a selection panel on 30th December 2010. 18. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the process for selection for the dealership of the retail outlet was commenced in the month of May 2010 that culminated into a selection panel on 30th December 2010. Till date i.e. for nearly a year and half the matter has not been resolved. It is evident that the dealership for the retail outlet cannot be awarded unless the selected candidate produces a ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the District Magistrate in respect of the proposed land. Till date the appellant has not been able to produce the required ‘No Objection Certificate’. It is not relevant whether the land in question is rightly or unnecessarily made subject matter of dispute. Suffice that the appellant has failed to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Magistrate. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly held that the Corporation is not expected to wait for an indefinite time for production of such ‘No Objection Certificate’. We are also unable to comprehend the shelter taken by the Corporation under paragraph 16(c) of the brochure. We are sure the said Clause (c) of paragraph 16 is not meant for prolonging the matter for an indefinitely long time. The appellant has not been able to produce the required ‘No Objection Certificate’ for a year and half since the date of his selection. We do not suppose that the Corporation is required to wait further to give opportunity to the appellant to produce such certificate. 19. We are also of the opinion that in view of the express power reserved by the Corporation for award of the dealership to the next candidate on the merit panel, the Corporation is not required to be directed to commence the process for grant of dealership anew as that would incur unnecessary expense and loss of precious time. 20. For the aforesaid reason the impugned order dated 29th September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6125 of 2011 is confirmed to the extent the learned single Judge has upheld the second position of the writ petitioner. We also confirm the finding that the District Magistrate had refused to grant the ‘No Objection Certificate’ recorded by the learned single Judge. We also confirm the finding that the District Magistrate had refused to grant the ‘No Objection Certificate’ recorded by the learned single Judge. We, however, hold that the Corporation is not required to be directed to start the selection process for the award of the dealership for the retail outlet afresh. 21. We hold that on failure of the appellant to produce the required ‘No Objection Certificate’, the appellant is disqualified for the award of the dealership for the retail outlet at the location in question. The writ petitioner being next on the merit panel, the Corporation will award the dealership for the retail outlet at the location in question to the writ petitioner after following the process contained in the brochure. The aforesaid exercise will be completed as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from today. 22. Letters Patent Appeal No.1845 of 2011 is dismissed. Interlocutory Application no.3205 of 2015 stands disposed of. 23. Letters Patent Appeal No.1916 of 2011 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 24. The parties will bear their own cost. BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.:–I agree. ?