1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, assisted by Ms. R. Jain. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing IOCL, assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj, advocate. 2. Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers was initiated by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. by Notice published in 'The Assam. Tribune' daily on 11.7.2012. The last date for submitting application was fixed on 24.8.2012. In the present case the issue is with regard to appointment of a Retail Outlet Dealer at Mangoldoi in the District of Darrang. One of the criteria in making selection is that the candidate must have readily available site suitable for setting up of a Retail Outlet or have a firm commitment/ offer from the land owner for purchase/lease of the site. The details of the land were required to be furnished along with the application. 3. According to the petitioner the last date was extended and he submitted his application on 3.9.2012 and at SI. No. 12 provided the details of the land along with copies of the registered lease deeds executed by and between the petitioner with one Sri Gunendra Das in Lease Deed dated 22.8.2012 and the other with one Sri Kusumbar Das in Lease Deed dated 31.8.2012. Following the procedure for selection, an interview was held on 17.5.2013 and respective marks were awarded to the qualified bidders under respective heads of assessment. The petitioner scored above all the other bidders and was ranked at No. 1 position. In the assessment so made marks were awarded under the following heads : (i) Capability to provide infrastructure and facilities. (ii) Capability to arrange finance and (iii) Capability to generate business. Besides, marks were also awarded under the heads, i.e., experience, business acumen, personality, etc. 4. Despite having ranked a Nos. 1 in the selection, the petitioner was not issued the Letter of Intent. Admittedly there was a dispute with regard to the land taken on lease, which was the subject--matter in Title Suit No. 106/2013 filed by one Rup Das against said Gunendra Das and the petitioner herein. The said suit ended in compromise and the same is recorded by the court of Munsiff No. 1 at Mangoldoi in its Order dated 8.7.2014. Decks having been cleared, the petitioner was expecting issue of the Letter of Intent. The said suit ended in compromise and the same is recorded by the court of Munsiff No. 1 at Mangoldoi in its Order dated 8.7.2014. Decks having been cleared, the petitioner was expecting issue of the Letter of Intent. The prolonged delay and non-furnishing of reason constrained the petitioner to institute the present proceedings with prayer for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as a Retail Outlet Dealer in the specified location of Mangoldoi Town on the basis of the result of the interview dated 17.5.2013. 5. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is on record. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel refers to paragraph 4 of the said affidavit to say that since the petitioner had offered a plot of land which has been taken on lease from Sri Gunendra Das and the same not being permitted by the Circular No. 6069(DSG)-16/10 dated 10.2.2010 of IOCL, as such the said land cannot be accepted. As a necessary corollary, Letter of Intent cannot be issued. According to Mr. Choudhury, as per the aforesaid Circular dated 10.2.2010 the prescribed norm for evaluation of land is "Having clear title of land 'Own Land'/'Registered Sale Deed' as on date of application instead of "capability to provide land and infrastructure". As the writ petitioner apparently did not have clear title of land 'Own Land' and/or possessed a 'Registered Sale Deed' in respect of the offered land as on the date of application, as such, by operation of the aforesaid Circular dated 10.2.2010, the petitioner was not entitled to a Letter of Intent. 6. Whether the prescription under the aforesaid Circular dated 10.2.2010 can be operated upon to deny benefit to the petitioner, assumes utmost significance. At the outset it is observed that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway or after a process has been initiated. In the instant case and pursuant to applications received for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers at Mangoldoi Town, the same were processed, interview held and assessment carried out on the basis of the laid down criteria. To reiterate, one of the assessments made was under the head "capability to provide infrastructure and facilities". In the said assessment amongst the qualified bidders, the petitioner was ranked at No. 1 position. To reiterate, one of the assessments made was under the head "capability to provide infrastructure and facilities". In the said assessment amongst the qualified bidders, the petitioner was ranked at No. 1 position. After the process of selection got completed, the respondent authorities have now brought in a new concept that the land offered by the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the Circular dated 10.2.2010 which prescribes that the head "capability to provide land and infrastructure" read as "having clear title of land 'Own Land'/'Registered Sale Deed' as on date of application". The stand of the respondent IOCL directly militates against the settled proposition of law, as indicated above, that rules of the game cannot be changed in the midway and/or after the process has been initiated. 7. From the affidavit-in-opposition it is abundantly clear that the decision of the respondent, authorities not to accept and/or not to issue Letter of Intent to the petitioner is on the basis of the prescription under the aforesaid Circular dated 10.2.2010. At this stage senior counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury, refers to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. Reference is made to the Deed of Agreement dated 4.6.2014 on the basis of which a compromise to the aforesaid Title Suit No. 106/2013 was brought about. Mr. Choudhury submits that a perusal of the said deed of agreement discloses that the lessor, i.e., Gunendra Das is a co-sharer of the land in question. Situated thus, the Lease Deed dated 22.8.2012 is an incomplete and unenforceable document, inasmuch as, the other co--sharers are not party to the said lease deed. 8. From the facts above it is noticed that the sole ground in arriving at the decision not to accept the plot of land offered by the petitioner and for refusal to issue Letter of Intent is only upon the Circular dated 10.2.2010. The IOCL Authority cannot be allowed to improve their stand by taking any other additional grounds at this stage, more so, by taking any advantage of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. 9. The decision of the respondent IOCL on the basis of the Circular dated 10.2.2010 is an illegal and arbitrary decision not commensurate with fair play and transparent actions. The respondent IOCL cannot be permitted to change the rules of the game by placing reliance upon the Circular of 2010. 9. The decision of the respondent IOCL on the basis of the Circular dated 10.2.2010 is an illegal and arbitrary decision not commensurate with fair play and transparent actions. The respondent IOCL cannot be permitted to change the rules of the game by placing reliance upon the Circular of 2010. The prescription in the said Circular do not find mention in the notice inviting bid and the respondent IOCL also cannot belatedly say that the said advertisement was issued in total ignorance of its own Circular dated 10.2.2010. 10. The petitioner having been selected in accordance with the laid down procedure cannot be denied the benefit of selection and appointment as a Retail Outlet Dealer. 11. For all the reasons stated above this writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondent IOCL to complete the process of selection and appointment in terms of the result of the interview and assessment made on 17.5.2013. The exercise which the respondent IOCL is required to undertake shall be completed within a period of 2 months from today. 12. Resultantly, this writ petition succeeds and the parties are left to bear their own costs. _________________