ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation as also learned counsel for private respondent No.8. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection of private respondent No.8 as the first empanelled candidate in terms of the final merit panel published on 23.2.2012 by the respondent Corporation for establishment of retail outlet MS and HSD at the location ‘between 3 to 4 kilometers from Sataha Sugar Mill towards Jagdishpur in East Champaran District’ and for consequential reliefs including grant of dealership of retail outlet in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner and respondent No.8 had applied for the aforesaid retail outlet dealership pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.9.2011 in which the aforesaid location was mentioned at Serial No. 234, situated in East Champaran District. After holding interview on 23.2.2012 a merit panel was prepared in which respondent No.8 was shown as the first in the panel with 91.27 marks and the petitioner as second with 89.60 marks. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the respondent authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation stating that the lands offered by respondent No.8 in Khesra Nos. 58, 59 and 60, pertaining to Khata Nos. 372, 370 & 384 respectively, did not abut SH-54 but are bounded by the Khesra No.62, pertaining to Khata No.387, on the north and east side, which is a Gairmajarua Aam land. The complaint of the petitioner was enquired into and initially the respondent Corporation was of the view that there was substance in the complaint. However, upon subsequent reports from the Circle Officer it was decided that the plot offered by respondent No.8 was abutting the road and by letter dated 16.8.2013 withdrew the earlier letter dated 31.5.2012 informing the petitioner that they were proceeding with the selection of the dealership as per the Merit Panel dated 23.2.2012 as per laid down policy of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Court. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that between the plot Nos. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Court. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that between the plot Nos. 59 and 60 of the petitioner and SH-54 there is a narrow strip of land pertaining to Khata No. 385, Khesra No. 62, area 3 kathas 7 dhurs, which is a Gairmajarua Aam land and to the east of the said land there is State Highway No.54 and the said plot No.62 itself is being used as a flank of the State Highway. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset had sought to assail the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the land of the petitioner was not located at the State Highway and therefore the said lands are not eligible for selection as retail outlet. However, when the exact description of the location in the advertisement was pointed out as being not specifically the land located on the SH-54 but as between 3 to 4 kilometers from Sataha Sugar Mill towards Jagdishpur in East Champaran District, learned counsel had to accept that the plot of land offered by respondent No.8 falls within the description as per the advertisement. 6. However, it is still argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question does not have any exit point towards the main road as in between there is a narrow strip of land being plot No.62 which is a Gairmajarua Aam land and not part of the road itself. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the candidature of the private respondent has to be rejected for the further reason of violation of Clause 19.2 of the Brochure for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealership issued by the respondent Corporation as also Clause 10(Ja) of the Advertisement. It is submitted that respondent No.8 had in his application brought on record a lease deed with respect to the land in question which was executed by the father of the said respondent as the landlord in favour of the respondent in which the western boundary of the plots had been shown as road instead of plot No.62, the Gairmajarua Aam land. It is submitted that since respondent No.8 is guilty of having made a false statement he therefore comes under the mischief of Clause 19.2 of the Brochure which provides that if any information furnished by the applicant is found to be false at any point of time before or after appointment as a dealer, the allotment will be cancelled forthwith and dealership terminated in case commissioned. Learned counsel also refers to Clause 10(Ja) of the advertisement which is even more clear on the point stating that if any description in the advertisement or in the documents annexed to it is found to be untrue or false at any stage then without assigning any reason the application shall be rejected and if the applicant has already been appointed as a dealer, his dealership shall be cancelled. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the said provisions the respondent Corporation ought not to have issued the Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.8. 8. Learned counsel has also sought to assail the stand of respondent No.8 in the counter affidavit regarding claim about the plot No.62 having become part of SH-54 and not Gairmajarua Aam land. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Indian Oil Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the respondents had earlier accepted, prima facie, the first part of the complaint of the petitioner with regard to land not being by the side of the State Highway, but after having received the inspection report from the Circle Officer, Paharpur in compliance with the direction of the District Magistrate, East Champaran, the Corporation changed its mind. It is submitted that the requirement for approaching the retail outlet is the entry and exit points over the said land. It is the stand of learned counsel that the Corporation is essentially required to look into the matter from a commercial angle that the retail outlet should be approachable. On the basis of the reports of the CO and DCLR it was found that the adjacent plot No. 62 being a Gairmajarua Aam land was being used as flank of the State Highway and had never been used for any other purpose and in fact was not fit for any other purpose. On the basis of the reports of the CO and DCLR it was found that the adjacent plot No. 62 being a Gairmajarua Aam land was being used as flank of the State Highway and had never been used for any other purpose and in fact was not fit for any other purpose. In this regard learned counsel also relies upon the recent report of the Circle Officer given on 21.3.2014 in which it is categorically stated that the part of Khesra No.62, which is by the side of the pitch road, is not possible to be used for any other purpose except as road. 10. The further stand of the respondent Corporation is that the Letter of Intent issued is itself conditional upon No Objection being issued by the Road Construction Department and the District Magistrate. It is stated that respondent No.8 has already been granted approval by the State for retail outlet by letter dated 24.1.2014 by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Secretary-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar followed by the consequential approval from the Executive Engineer, Road Division, Road Construction Department, Motihari dated 31.1.2014 for approaching retail outlet site in question. It is further submitted that an application has been filed before the District Magistrate on 7.10.2013 by the respondent Corporation for grant of No Objection Certificate and the same is awaited. It is submitted that only after the approval of the District Magistrate is granted then the retail outlet is permitted to be opened on the site in question and thus the respondent Corporation is looking at the matter from the point of view of the running of commercial operation of the retail outlet and not as per the legal technicalities in the matter. 11. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the question of false statement is concerned, the Corporation looks into such matters in a broad manner when a retail outlet is to be established in a rural area and the applicant concerned is a villager. It is submitted that it is not possible for such person to have the necessary knowledge or expertise in the matter of giving accurate description, that too, with regard to the boundaries in the sale deed or lease deed that may be involved. It is submitted that it is not possible for such person to have the necessary knowledge or expertise in the matter of giving accurate description, that too, with regard to the boundaries in the sale deed or lease deed that may be involved. It is further submitted that any such statement regarding boundary is also of little significance as no plot of land is ever accepted without making a field verification of the same by the team of the respondent Corporation by visiting the site. Moreover, it has been found after making due enquiries from the local administration that the plot No.62 is being used as a road and not for any other purpose and thus the statement regarding description of boundary cannot be held to be false or inaccurate to the extent of disqualifying the respondent No.8. It is submitted that the same is further backed by the report of the Circle Officer as also the action of the authorities of the State in the Road Construction Department in granting No Objection and approval for the use of the proposed site for retail outlet and for approaching the same thus, according to learned counsel, it is not a case where Clause 19.2 of the Brochure and 10(Ja) of the Advertisement can be invoked. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.8, apart from adopting the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, further submits that he has been rightly awarded the retail outlet being No.1 on the merit panel and the statements made in the application or in the lease deed cannot be held to be false. It is submitted that respondent No.8 has deposited an amount of Rs. 5,46,600/- in the Treasury and thereafter No Objection has been granted by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department for the use of the proposed site as also by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department for the approach road. It is submitted that respondent No.8 has deposited an amount of Rs. 5,46,600/- in the Treasury and thereafter No Objection has been granted by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department for the use of the proposed site as also by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department for the approach road. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in view of the fact that Plot No.62 in question is already being used as a road it cannot be said that any deliberate false statement is made and the same is further supported by the report of the local officials as also by the No Objection granted by the higher authorities of the State and there does not appear to be any reason why the statements in the lease can be regarded as false in the given facts of this case. 13. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. From the materials on the record it is evident that the plots of land offered by respondent No.8 were by the side of State Highway-54 intervened only by a narrow strip of Gairmajarua Aam land in Plot No.62. It has come on the record that the said land was effectively being used as a flank of the State Highway and further that it is not fit for any other use. The said stand has also been further made clear by the fact that the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department has granted approval to the respondent No.8 for establishing the retail outlet on the site. 14. This Court is of the view that in such matters, subject to the terms of the advertisement, all that is required for the land in question is that it must have provision for the vehicles to enter and move out. Once the same has been provided it cannot be said that the land is not fit for the purpose of retail outlet. Once the same has been provided it cannot be said that the land is not fit for the purpose of retail outlet. There is nothing in the advertisement itself which shows that the land must abut the public road and the sequence of events that have happened in the meantime go to show that the respondent No.8 has obtained certificate from the State authorities in accordance with law and there is no hindrance for the retail outlet being established and the vehicles entering and move out from the said retail outlet. 15. So far as the question of making false statement is concerned, it is true that the lease deed in question was executed by the father of respondent No.8 in his favour for the purpose of retail outlet and it was expected that a completely accurate statement regarding the boundary on the west had been given therein but this Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that where such documents have been executed by villagers then the extent of inaccuracy will have to be looked into, since plot No.62 was being used as a flank of the State Highway, therefore the description of boundary on the west as road is not so inaccurate as to invite application of Clause 19.2 of the Brochure and Clause 10(Ja) of the Advertisement. 16. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not see any reason to interfere in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.