ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: (A) to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent No.1 contained in Annexure-F for allotting the dealership of retail outlet in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4; (B) to direct the respondent No.1 to consider and allow the application of the petitioners for the purpose of dealership of retail outlet as the petitioners are fulfilling all the requirements and conditions. (C) Pass such other and further orders as may deem fit in the interest of justice. 14. Pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to: (A) To stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the decision contained in Annexure-F selecting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of giving dealership of retail outlet by respondent No.1.” 2. The facts which can be set out from the record of the petition are as under: 2.1 Respondent No.1 – an Oil Company gave an advertisement in daily newspaper – Gujarat Samachar on 25.9.2004 and in daily newspaper – Times of India on 28.5.2004 inviting applications for appointment of 98 dealers and distributors at various places in Gujarat State for selling their petroleum products. The petitioners who happens to be owner of land bearing survey Nos.229 and 229 Part situated at Village Rola, District Valsad being qualified to apply for the said dealership applied for the same. It is the say of the petitioners that the petitioners were fulfilling all other required qualifications under the said advertisement. It is further say of the petitioners that being owner of land bearing survey Nos.229 and 229 Part which abuts on National Highway No.8, the petitioner furnished map as well as all other required documents before the authority of respondent No.1. The record further indicates that the petitioners were called for interview by respondent No.1 by communication dated 10.8.2004 asking the petitioners to remain present for oral interview on 27.8.2004. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioners remained present on the day of the interview and gave information as asked for by the Committee. The record further indicates that the petitioners were called for interview by respondent No.1 by communication dated 10.8.2004 asking the petitioners to remain present for oral interview on 27.8.2004. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioners remained present on the day of the interview and gave information as asked for by the Committee. It is the say of petitioner No.1 that petitioner No.1 satisfied the Committee that she is financially capable to handle all requirements and ensured the Committee that she is doing the business with the help of her father and two brothers. It is further the case of petitioner No.2 that petitioner No.2 also called by the Selection Committee and inquired from petitioner No.2 whether he has any objection if the agency is granted to petitioner No.1 who happens to be daughter of petitioner No.2. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that after the interview, no communication was received from respondent No.2. On making inquiry, the petitioners came to know that the agency has been allotted to respondent No.3 herein who is owner of land bearing survey Nos.271/1 and 271/2 which are also situated nearby National Highway No.8 at Rola Village. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. Trilok J. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Nandish Y. Chudgar, learned advocate for Nanavati Associates for respondent No.1, Mr. I.H. Syed, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2 and Mr. Dishant Thakkar, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates for respondent No.3. Though served, no one appears for respondent No.4. 4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that even though the petitioners are fulfilling the required qualifications for getting dealership and even though the petitioners had furnished all documents and even at the time of interview, the financial capacity and aspect of the petitioners were inquired which was ably replied by petitioner No.1. The petitioners have been denied the dealership and it has been wrongly allotted to respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is contended that as far as the geographical land is concerned, the land belonging to the petitioners is far better as it abuts on National Highway No.8, whereas the land belonging to respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not situated exactly on the National Highway and in fact divided by road. It is contended that as far as the geographical land is concerned, the land belonging to the petitioners is far better as it abuts on National Highway No.8, whereas the land belonging to respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not situated exactly on the National Highway and in fact divided by road. It is further contended that even as far as other facilities like telephone, etc. is concerned, the same is very near to the land of the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that the decision taken by respondent No.1 is arbitrary and illegal and the same is passed without giving any reasons and the same is contrary to the policy of the respondents itself. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the allotment of dealership and distributorship should be done in fair manner and should provide equal opportunity to all concerned candidates. It is further contended that the respondents have adopted pick and chose policy and therefore, this is a fit case for judicial review taken by respondent No.1. It is submitted that even the petitioners as eligible candidates were not aware about the criteria which has weighed for selection of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is therefore contended that the action of respondent No.1 in not allotting the dealership to the petitioners and wrongly allotting to respondent No.3 is perse arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 5. Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for respondent No.1 has relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1 that the case of the petitioners as well as other candidates were examined and out of list of 17 such candidates who are interviewed as per the marks given by the Selection Committee, 3 candidates were enlisted, wherein respondent No.3 was at Sr. No.1, respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.2 and M/s. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. was at Sr. No.3. It is contended that the petitioners were never selected by the Selection Committee. No.1, respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.2 and M/s. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. was at Sr. No.3. It is contended that the petitioners were never selected by the Selection Committee. Relying upon the merit panel, it is pointed out that the Selection Committee examined all relevant documents of each and every candidate and thereafter, 3 candidates were shortlisted for final recommendation. It is contended that the Selection Committee has strictly adhered to the standards which were prescribed and has strictly followed the policy guidelines. It is contended that location of land is to be viewed from the point of suitability for commercial angle and rates applicable to the Company which is considered to be a major factor in evaluation of land offered for dealership. It is also pointed out that as per the policy, the allotment of retail outlet dealership was given by the respondent Corporation on the basis of the merit panel finalized by the Selection Committee. It is submitted that the entire process of selection of retail outlet dealers is undertaken by the respondent Corporation by following the guidelines and procedure issued by the competent authority and by inviting public advertisement and selection is made on eligibility and merits. It is lastly contended that the procedure followed by respondent No.1 is as per the guidelines and respondent No.3 has been allotted the retail outlet strictly on merits and as the petitioners were not selected by the Selection Committee, the allegations about the arbitrariness or malafide in selection of respondent No.3 are made without any basis. It is therefore contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Dishant Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent No.3 has submitted that respondent No.3 has been selected by the Selection Committee and after evaluation of the merits, where in fact respondent No.3 has already been granted retail outlet dealership and is running the same since 2004 for which a LOI has already been issued on 30.9.2004. It is further submitted that pursuant to grant of LOI, respondent No.3 has also executed a lease deed in favour of respondent Corporation on 25.5.2005 and has commissioned retail outlet in the name of Vaishnavi Petroleum with effect from 31.5.2005. It is therefore contended that the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. It is further submitted that pursuant to grant of LOI, respondent No.3 has also executed a lease deed in favour of respondent Corporation on 25.5.2005 and has commissioned retail outlet in the name of Vaishnavi Petroleum with effect from 31.5.2005. It is therefore contended that the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings, it transpires that respondent No.1 gave a public advertisement in newspaper having wide circulation namely Times of India. As per the policy, respondent No.1 has a Selection Committee of 3 members, wherein as many as 17 eligible candidates were interviewed on 27.8.2004. It further appears from the record of the petition and more particularly, the annexures which are annexed with the affidavit of respondent No.1 that the Selection Committee has considered all vital aspects including the potentiality of the lands which were offered by all candidates including the petitioners. It is also found that the Selection Committee has also considered Land Evaluation Committee Report while examining the case of each of such candidate who had applied for retail outlet dealership. It may further be noted that the land evaluation is done, wherein 14 different parameters are taken into consideration. Considering all such vital aspects, the Selection Committee consisting of 3 members, shortlisted 3 candidates i.e. respondent Nos.3, and M/s. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and after following the guidelines, has allotted Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.3 on 30.9.2004. As pointed by learned advocate for respondent No.3, after issuance of Letter of Intent, respondent No.3 has already entered into lease deed with respondent No.1 Corporation and has already started retail outlet. Except the bare allegation that the selection was arbitrary and malafide, no material is produced on record by the petitioners. It may be noted that as far as the process which is followed by respondent No.1 while making selection of the retail outlet is concerned, it does not show that there is any breach of basic principle of law. Except the bare allegation that the selection was arbitrary and malafide, no material is produced on record by the petitioners. It may be noted that as far as the process which is followed by respondent No.1 while making selection of the retail outlet is concerned, it does not show that there is any breach of basic principle of law. As observed hereinabove, respondent No.1 gave a public advertisement and after considering and scrutinizing the applications which were received pursuant to such advertisement from the eligible candidates for interview, wherein also as per the guidelines, all relevant materials including the land evaluation report have been considered and as per the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, retail outlet is allotted to respondent No.3. From the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no error in decision making process which warrants for judicial review by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. As far as the aspect whether the land belonging to respondent No.3 or the land belonging to respondent No.1 is more commercial viable has to be left to the decision of the Selection Committee which is armed with an expert opinion and the opinion expressed by the Special Committee as well as the decision making process undertaken by the Selection Committee is based on such germane ground which does not require any interference by substituting the decision of such expert body by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the record, it clearly transpires that respondent No.1 has followed its policy and guidelines for the selection of retail outlet and as the selection is in accordance with law, the same does not require any interference by this Court. Consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. However, In facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.