JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: “(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-11. (ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the decision of respondents No. 1 to 3 to re-allot the retail dealership of Indian Oil Corporation in respect of location “in and around Fatehpur between mile stones 28-30” in District Kangra, HP and to strike down the action of respondents No. 1 to 3 to re-invite applications for the said location vide Annexures P-13 to the extent it deals with said location. (iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order Annexure P-16 being irrational, illegal and arbitrary. (iv) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside Annexure P-18 and the entire selection process undertaken by Respondents No. 1 to 3 in pursuance to Annexure P-13. (v) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to issue Letter of Intent to the petitioner in pursuance of her selection as retail outlet dealer of respondent no. 1 in respect of the location detailed herein above. (vi) That the respondents 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the controversy in hand. (vii) Any other writ, order or directions, as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that on 04.09.2009 respondents No. 1 to 3 published an advertisement in various newspapers inviting applications for appointment of retail sale outlet dealers in different locations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. As per the said advertisement, the appointment was to be made for a single particular location by holding interview (viva-voce) and the parameters for evaluation of the applicants/candidates prescribed therein were as under:- “(a) Capability of providing land and infrastructure facility 35 marks (b) Capability to provide finance 25 marks (c) Capability to generate business 25 marks (d) Age 4 marks (e) Experience 4 marks (f) Business availability/acumen 7 marks Total Marks 100” 4. One of the locations so advertised by respondents No. 1 to 3 was “Fatehpur (20-22 Meel Ka Pathar Ke Beach)”. One of the locations so advertised by respondents No. 1 to 3 was “Fatehpur (20-22 Meel Ka Pathar Ke Beach)”. This site was in District Kangra and was meant for women (open category). 5. As the petitioner fulfilled the qualification criteria laid down in the advertisement issued by the Respondent Corporation, she submitted her application alongwith all documents/affidavit etc. to the authority concerned within the stipulated period to be considered for allotment of the site in issue. Respondents No. 4 and 5 also applied for the allotment of the said location. The respective lands/sites offered by all the parties i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 were duly inspected by the officials of respondents No. 1 to 3 and thereafter, respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 01.04.2010 called upon the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee for the interview which was scheduled at 10.00 A.M. on 22.04.2010. 6. This interview was conducted in the office of respondent No. 3 i.e. 21-SDA Commercial Complex, Kausmpti, Shimla-9, H.P. and alongwith petitioner, private respondents were also called for interview by respondent No. 3 on the said date at the same venue. The result of the interviews so held on 22.04.2010 were declared on 23.04.2010. Following were the marks allotted to the petitioner as well as the private respondents:- “Petitioner = 89.10 marks Respondent No. 4 = 83.07 marks Respondent No. 5 = 77.57 marks” 7. Thus, the petitioner was evaluated at number one by the Respondent Corporation in the merit panel so drawn. Respondent No. 4 filed a civil suit in the last week of April, 2010 in the Court Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, District Kangra against the present petitioner as well as the Respondent Corporation seeking a decree for declaration as well as permanent injunction for cancellation of the allotment of the dealership in issue in favour of the present petitioner. The suit was dismissed in default on 05.06.2010. Thereafter, an application for restoration of the same was filed but the same was later on withdrawn vide order dated 20.06.2010. 8. It was further the case of the petitioner that village Fatehpur was situated on Pong Dam-Fatehpur-Jassur road, declared as State Highway No. 27 by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 19.07.2005. As per this notification, total distance of Pong Dam-Fatehpur-Jassur is 53 KMs. 8. It was further the case of the petitioner that village Fatehpur was situated on Pong Dam-Fatehpur-Jassur road, declared as State Highway No. 27 by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 19.07.2005. As per this notification, total distance of Pong Dam-Fatehpur-Jassur is 53 KMs. Thereafter, Government of Himachal Pradesh had again issued notification dated 22.05.2007 in partial modification of the earlier notification dated 19.07.2005 and the roads mentioned in the said notification were declared as State Highway and Major District Roads. In this notification Pong Dam-Fatehpur-Jassur was mentioned at serial No. 15 and the length of the same was 53 KMs. In both these notifications, the number of the said State Highway was 27 and according to the petitioner, the marking of the mile stone of the said Highway No. 27 Pong Dam-Fatehpur-Jassur road was done by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the basis of the said two notifications. According to the petitioner, the site in issue advertised vide Annexure P-1 i.e. Fatehpur (between mile stones 20-22) was identified and indicated on the basis of the chainage of the mile stones based on the said two notifications. All the applicants i.e. the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted their applications indicating therein the proposed sites between mile stones 20-22 on the basis of chainage of State Highway No. 27 fixed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as per Annexures P-6 and P-7 and as per the said chainage the mile stones was from the direction Pong Dam to Jassur via Fatehpur. 9. When the civil suit mentioned above was filed by respondent No. 4, the petitioner became apprehensive and enquired from Assistant Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Sub Division, Fatehpur, District Kangra, who intimated her vide correspondence dated 03.05.2010 that the RDS of the State Highway-27 had been altered on account of inclusion of additional length of road in the said highway from Pong Dam to Terrace. It was mentioned in communication dated 03.05.2010 that the location of the plots earlier located from KMs 20/0 to 22/0 were now located between KMs 28/0 to 30/0 due to re-marking of the RDs additional length from Pong Dam to Terrace. 10. It was mentioned in communication dated 03.05.2010 that the location of the plots earlier located from KMs 20/0 to 22/0 were now located between KMs 28/0 to 30/0 due to re-marking of the RDs additional length from Pong Dam to Terrace. 10. Similar query was also raised by respondent No. 3 from the concerned Engineer of P.W.D. Division Fatehpur and vide Annexure P-9 dated 14.06.2010, respondent No. 2 called upon the said authority to intimate the date of repainting the mile stone on above chainage and date of notification of old chainage and present chainage. In response to the said communication, Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division Fatehpur, District Kangra, intimated respondent No. 3 that the date of repainting of the miles tone was 26.02.2010 and the date of chainage of old chainage to new chainage was as per Government notification dated 22.05.2007. Vide communication dated 25.08.2010 respondent-Corporation intimated the petitioner that the Corporation had received a complaint against the dealership selection pertaining to the retail outlet subject matter of the present writ petition and the said complaint was got investigated and the investigation substantiated the substance of the complaint. On these basis, vide said communication, the petitioner was informed that the dealership selection for subject location had been cancelled. 11. This was followed by issuance of advertisement dated 15.09.2010 vide which the same site was again advertised in the following words:- “In and around Fatehpur between miles stone 28 to 30 in District Kangra.” 12. Petitioner being aggrieved by the cancellation of her allotment of retail sale outlet dealership as communicated her vide communication dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P-11), filed CWP No. 6266 of 2010 in this Court. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide its decision dated 07.03.2012 in the following terms: “I direct that the Corporation shall consider the complaint of respondent No. 5 in terms of the policy for which purpose both the parties herein as also respondent No. 4 Aman Kumari shall be given an opportunity of being heard. All the grounds raised herein will be open to the petitioner to be urged before the appropriate authority. The respondent will also be at liberty to place before the authority such other or further material in support of their contentions. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. All the grounds raised herein will be open to the petitioner to be urged before the appropriate authority. The respondent will also be at liberty to place before the authority such other or further material in support of their contentions. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. The entire proceedings shall be concluded within four months from the date when this order is presented before the Corporation. Liberty to the parties to approach this Court again.” 13. As per the petitioner, in purported compliance to the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 6266 of 2010, respondent-Corporation issued order dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P-16) and by way of this order, the cancellation of selection of the petition and issuance of second advertisement for establishment of retail outlet dealership was justified in the following terms: “In view of the above stated facts, the competent authority has observed that the said location has been rightfully cancelled. Decision to issue the second advertisement for the establishment of retail outlet dealership regarding the location “in or around Fatehpur (between milestone 28 to 30) in District Kangra is in accordance with the norms and policies of the respondents.” 14. This was followed by declaration of the result pursuant to the second advertisement issued by the Respondent Corporation in which now respondent No. 5 was declared as the successful candidate who was allotted 90.1 marks, whereas the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 and she had been allotted 88.9 marks. As per petitioner, perusal of the earlier marks sheet and the subsequent marks sheet would demonstrate that both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had been allotted almost similar marks, however, now under the heading “capability to earn finance”, the respondent had been granted more marks than the petitioner. 15. Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of order dated 20.12.2012 as well as the subsequent advertisement issued by respondent/Corporation, in the process initiated under which respondent No. 5 was found more meritorious than the petitioner, she filed the present petition. 16. According to the petitioner, the act of respondents No. 1 to 3 of cancelling the dealership selection of the petitioner and re-advertising of the same location was wrong and illegal. Unilateral decision taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 to cancel the selection of the petitioner without affording an opportunity was violative of the principle of natural justice. 16. According to the petitioner, the act of respondents No. 1 to 3 of cancelling the dealership selection of the petitioner and re-advertising of the same location was wrong and illegal. Unilateral decision taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 to cancel the selection of the petitioner without affording an opportunity was violative of the principle of natural justice. Further according to the petitioner, earlier the petitioner was at serial No. 1 over and above respondent No. 5 on the basis of the marks obtained by her in the interview and the said interview was conducted strictly as per the procedure contemplated in Annexure P-1. As per the petitioner, cancellation of the lawful selection of the petitioner was done with a malafide intent by respondents No. 1 to 3 in collusion with respondents No. 4 and 5. It was further her case that whereas on one hand the petitioner has been denied the right to have retail sale outlet dealership for a location to which she was held to have qualified, now the same site was re-advertised only with an intent to give benefit to others who were earlier found to be behind the petitioner and who otherwise were not entitled to be allotted the site in preference to the petitioner who was already selected. It was further the case of the petitioner that impugned act of respondents No. 1 to 3 otherwise was blatant abuse of powers and the said act was a result of manipulation. Respondent/Corporation in the garb of administrative power had acted in an arbitrarily and unreasonable manner to deny the petitioner her legal right and to confer upon respondent No. 5 such rights to which she was not entitled to. According to the petitioner, the reasons which had been assigned by respondents No. 1 to 3 were irrational, illegal and smack of clear malafides on the basis of which allegedly the chainage was notified to be changed on and with effect from 22.05.2007. 17. Respondents No. 1 to 3 in the reply filed by them have put forth their stand in the preliminary objections. According to the said respondents, advertisement dated 04.09.2009 was issued in which amongst other locations, the location in question, i.e. Fatehpur (between milestone 20-22, District Kangra was also advertised. 17. Respondents No. 1 to 3 in the reply filed by them have put forth their stand in the preliminary objections. According to the said respondents, advertisement dated 04.09.2009 was issued in which amongst other locations, the location in question, i.e. Fatehpur (between milestone 20-22, District Kangra was also advertised. As per the said respondents, they received complaints regarding the change of the chainage and in view of the complaints, they sought information from SDE PWD Division, Fatehpur, who informed them that date of repainting of the milestone was 26.02.2010 and the date of change of old chainage to new chainage was 22.05.2007. As per the above notification, milestone 20-22 was to be read as milestone 28-30 and accordingly, land of all the applicants including the petitioner lay between milestone 28-30, whereas location advertised by respondents was Fatehpur (between milestone 20-22). In view of the above, as per respondents No. 1 to 3, it scrapped the merit panel and issued fresh advertisement on 16.09.2010 for location which was now advertised as Fatehpur (between milestone 28-30). As per said respondents, petitioner alongwith private respondents No. 4 and 5 again applied for new location with the same land as was offered in the previous advertisement. In the second panel, the petitioner was declared to be number two, whereas Smt. Jyoti was found to be at number one. It was further the stand of the said respondents that in compliance of order dated 07.03.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6266/2010, competent authority appointed a senior officer of the Corporation to investigate the matter and complaint of Smt. Jyoti (respondent No. 5) was reconsidered and for this purpose, all the concerned parties were given an opportunity of being heard and after hearing them, the competent authority passed the order in issue. Thus, the said respondents justified their act. 18. Thus, the said respondents justified their act. 18. In the reply filed by respondent No. 5, setting aside of the selection of petitioner was justified on the grounds that respondent No. 5 had made a complaint to the respondent Corporation against the illegal selection of the petitioner and while investigating the said complaint, respondent Corporation found after physical verification of the site that advertisement dated 04.09.2009 with respect to the allotment of Retail Sale Outlet Dealership for Fatehpur location between 20-22 milestone was wrongly issued and, therefore, vide communication dated 25th August, 2010, said site location was cancelled because land of none of three applicants was falling within milestone 20-22. It was further stated in para-7 of the preliminary submission as under: “7. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the respondents No. 1 to 3 are well within their right to have cancelled the earlier advertisement dated 4.9.2009 and this right was reserved by respondents No. 1 to 3 in the advertisement itself as is clear from clause 10(b), therefore, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner, more particularly, when the petitioner participated in the selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.9.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the replying respondent that after the order was passed by this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 7.3.2012, the petitioner has been granted ample opportunity by the respondents No. 1 to 3 so as to show that the earlier advertisement dated 4.9.2009 was not factually incorrect, whereas to the contrary, the replying respondent had placed ample material before the authorities of respondents No. 1 to 3, perusal of which would go to show that the earlier advertisement dated 4.9.2009 was factually incorrect and, therefore, the subsequent advertisement was issued with respect to the exact location of mile stones, which mile stones were changed from 20-22 to new mile stones 27-29. It is submitted on behalf of the replying respondent that from the information, supplied in pursuant to the application under Right to Information Act, dated 9.4.2012 from PWD Nurpur Division, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R5/B, it is clear that in State Highway No. 27, kilometers have been changed from 45/920 to 53/600 during 7/2008 and these new kilometers stand completed in all respect, that is, fixing and painting from 03/0 to 53/600 under this Division. It is further clear from Annexure R5/B that the painting of the mile stones portion 03/0 to 42/680 has been done during March 2006, May 2007, February 2008, May 2009 and portion 42/680 to 53/600 once during 2007/2008. It is submitted on behalf of the replying respondent that the Fatehpur Division falls under the Superintending Engineer 9th Circle HP PWD Nurpur. It is clear from Annexure P-16 that the authorities of respondents No. 1 to 3 have categorically come to the right conclusion after considering the material placed before them by the replying respondents and also on the basis of the investigation made by their independent investigator that there was a notification (old chainage to new chainage) prior to the date of advertisement of location of Fatehpur (between mile stones 20-22) and to that extent the advertisement was factually incorrect and, which surfaced during complete investigation. Therefore, the earlier advertisement location was cancelled and a new advertisement was made re-advertising the location with correct details as per policy guidelines. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” 19. The stand so taken by respondent No. 5 was refuted by the petitioner by way of rejoinder. 20. By way of CMP No. 5448 of 2016, respondent-Corporation has placed on record the complaint filed by respondent No. 5 and the documents relating to investigation which was carried by respondents No. 1 to 3 on the said complaint and action taken thereon. 21. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties. 22. Admittedly, in the present case two advertisements were issued by the respondent-Corporation inviting applications for appointment of retail sale outlet dealers at Fatehpur in District Kangra, which was meant for women (open category). As per the earlier Notification, the details of the site were “Fatehpur (20-22 Meel Ka Pathar Ke Beach)”. After the acceptance of the complaint filed by respondent No. 5, by way of second advertisement, which was issued by respondents No. 1 to 3, the site now advertised was as under: “In and around Fatehpur between milestone 28 to 30 in District Kangra” 23. It is undisputed position that besides the petitioner, respondents No. 4 and 5 had responded to the earlier advertisement dated 04.09.2009 and the same set of parties responded to the second advertisement issued for the same location vide advertisement dated 15.09.2010. It is undisputed position that besides the petitioner, respondents No. 4 and 5 had responded to the earlier advertisement dated 04.09.2009 and the same set of parties responded to the second advertisement issued for the same location vide advertisement dated 15.09.2010. It is also an admitted position that earlier also the sites/locations which were offered by the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 were the same which were subsequently offered by them in response to the subsequent advertisement dated 15.09.2010. It is evident from the documents produced on record by the parties that whereas earlier after evaluation of the respective case of the parties, present petitioner was evaluated at No. 1, but in the second evaluation carried out by respondent-Corporation pursuant to advertisement dated 15.09.2010, respondent No. 5 has been evaluated at No. 1 and the petitioner has been evaluated at No. 2. The statement of performance of the petitioner and private respondent dated 20.09.2011, which is appended as Annexure P-18 demonstrates that the following marks have been allotted to the parties by the Evaluating Committee: Sr.No. Name of Candidate Capability to provide infrastructure and facility Capability to arrange finance Educational qualification Capacity to generate business Age Experience Business Acumen Personality Total Max. marks 35 25 15 10 4 4 5 2 100 1. Smt. Jyoti 33.1 25.0 10.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 1.5 90.1 2. Ms. Aman Kumari 31.3 25.0 12.0 8.5. 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 83.8 3. Ms. Nitu Sharma 33.4 21.0 12.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.0 88.9 24. It is apparent from the perusal of this document that petitioner has been given more marks under the head “Capability to provide infrastructure & facility” and the private respondent was found more meritorious than the petitioner as she was granted more marks under the head “Capability to arrange finance”. The earlier evaluation carried out in respect of the parties which is available on record as Annexure P-3 was as under: Sr.No. Name of the Candidate Capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities (Max 35) Capability to  provide finance Max.(25) Educational Qualification (Max. 15) Capability to   generate business (10 marks) Age (4 marks) Experience (4 marks) Business ability/acumen (5 marks) Personality (2 marks) Total marks (100) Merit Panel 1. Ms. Nitu Sharma 33.43 21.00 12.00 8.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 89.10 I 2. Smt. Jyoti 33.43 21.64 10.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 3.50 1.50 77.57 III 3. Ms. 15) Capability to   generate business (10 marks) Age (4 marks) Experience (4 marks) Business ability/acumen (5 marks) Personality (2 marks) Total marks (100) Merit Panel 1. Ms. Nitu Sharma 33.43 21.00 12.00 8.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 89.10 I 2. Smt. Jyoti 33.43 21.64 10.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 3.50 1.50 77.57 III 3. Ms. Aman Kumari 32.40 21.00 12.00 8.00 4.00 1.00 3.17 1.50 83.07 II 25. As I have already stated above, after the petitioner was found successful on the basis of the initial advertisement issued by the respondent-Corporation, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 5 making a grievance out about the location in issue which led to the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner and resulted in the issuance of advertisement dated 15.09.2010, but it is a matter of fact and record that same site was offered both by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 pursuant to advertisement dated 15.09.2010 which was earlier offered by these parties pursuant to advertisement dated 04.09.2009. It is thus apparent that the complaint which was filed by respondent No. 5 to the effect that the selection of the petitioner pursuant to first advertisement was vitiated on the ground of location was a motivated complaint. This is apparent from the fact that the location which was offered by the private respondent in response to the earlier advertisement was again re-offered by her in response to the subsequent advertisement. Had there been any merit in the complaint so filed by respondent No. 5, then obviously she would have had offered some other location pursuant to second advertisement. Besides this, both in the evaluation which was carried pursuant to the first advertisement and the second advertisement, the petitioner has been given more marks under the head capability to provide infrastructural facilities. In the evaluation which has been carried on the basis of second advertisement, respondent No. 5 has been declared successful on the basis of additional marks granted to her under the head “Capability to provide finance”. Thus, it is apparent that filing of complaint by respondent No. 5 after the petitioner was initially selected for the allotment of the retail outlet and its acceptance by respondent-Corporation, resulting in setting aside the selection of the petitioner was a motivated act and an act of colourable exercise of power. Thus, it is apparent that filing of complaint by respondent No. 5 after the petitioner was initially selected for the allotment of the retail outlet and its acceptance by respondent-Corporation, resulting in setting aside the selection of the petitioner was a motivated act and an act of colourable exercise of power. This entire exercise apparently was undertaken by the respondent-Corporation at the behest of respondent No. 5 and to confer undue advantage upon respondent No. 5. The act of respondent-Corporation of accepting the complaint so filed by respondent No. 5 is arbitrary and cannot be justified on the grounds on which the said complaint was allowed. It is thus apparent that the change in the chainage of the highway in issue had in fact neither any impact nor any effect on the site of the retail outlet. 26. A perusal of order dated 20.12.2012 which has been assailed by way of present writ petition will demonstrate that this is a communication which was addressed to the present petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 on behalf of General Manager (Retail Sales) Punjab State Office, Chandigarh. The subject of the said communication was “Order in compliance of order dt. March 7th 2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No. 6266 of 2012 titled Smt. Neetu Sharma Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others.” Further, this communication reveals that initial selection of the present petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 5 on various grounds before respondent Corporation. These grounds find mention in order dated 20.12.2012 as Point No. 1 to Point No. 8. All these points are enumerated hereinbelow: “Point No. 1: The first and very important point is that the company has allocated the Retail outlet to the such candidate whose land is in the range of mile stone 29-30 km’s Fatehpur and that is not as per advertisement of IOCL. Point No. 2: The offered land of the candidate is also not within 1 km both the side at Fatehpur. Point No. 3: The offered land from the candidate is in approximate Rhombus shape and also less land as required by IOCL in advertisement. Point No. 4: The selected candidate provide 4 marks for the Business experience COCO Pump, so the company also required cross checking, is the candidate really works or not, because as company provide 4 marks for the purpose. Point No. 4: The selected candidate provide 4 marks for the Business experience COCO Pump, so the company also required cross checking, is the candidate really works or not, because as company provide 4 marks for the purpose. Point No. 5: All the candidates provide approximately equal works in land verification approx. 33.42. Is that possible that all the candidates offered Land is same i.e. No. tree, No filing required, No cutting required, No telephone line, No sewerage under the land, No Power Pillars in all the Land. It also conferred me some objection. Point No. 6: I have own land with square shape, No leased based land and No leased over lease land as other candidates provide, but the company has not preferred this land those provide own land and free of all the objections. Point No. 7: In the interview, the interview team provides marks 8-8.5 out of 9 to the first selected candidate and only 3-3.5 marks given to me only i.e. minimum marks 33% only may as per interview guidelines. Point No. 8: As per the brochure, that at the time of interview the candidate will see the field verification report and sign there, but at the time of interview no such action taken by the company. 27. A perusal of the findings which have been returned on the points so formulated demonstrate that except for Point No. 1, none of the points so formulated on the complaint of respondent No. 5 found in favour with the respondent Corporation. The perversity with regard to the findings returned on Point No.1 has already been discussed by me in the above paras of the judgment. Incidentally, it is apparent from communication dated 20.12.2012 that though the said communication is termed as an order in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 6266 of 2012, however, communication dated 20.12.2012 actually is not the original order, if any, passed by the competent authority, but it just conveys as to what order actually was passed by the competent authority by way of observations. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that after the initial selection of the petitioner was set aside by respondent Corporation on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No. 5 and fresh advertisement was issued, the sites which were respectively offered by the petitioner and private respondents including respondent No. 5 were the same which were earlier offered by them in response to original advertisement. This demonstrates that in fact the change of chainage was used as a tool by the respondents to cancel the initial allotment of retail outlet in favour of the petitioner, which act of the respondent Corporation is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and nothing but an act of colourable exercise of power. 28. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Poa Holder and Ors. Vs. Ashok Shankaral Gwalani, Civil Appeal No. 9101 of 2012 decided on 14.12.2012, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold: “17. Generally, if an irregularity is detected in the matter of selection or preparation of a panel, it is desirable to have a fresh selection instead of re-arranging the panel which is found to be vitiated. The Authority empowered to appoint, is the competent authority to decide as to whether the panel should be discarded and there should be a fresh selection in view of the facts narrated above. In such circumstances, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to not have interfered with the decision of the competent authority in canceling the selection.” 29. In my considered view, the finding returned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment is of no help to the respondent Corporation because in the present case, there was no irregularity in the selection of the petitioner for the purpose of allotment of retail outlet pursuant to first advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation. The cancellation of selection of the petitioner by respondent Corporation is totally unjustified in law. Accordingly, in my considered view, the judgment so cited by learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has no applicability in the facts of the present case. 30. Respondent Corporation is a ‘Public Corporation’ and is ‘Other Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, in my considered view, the judgment so cited by learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has no applicability in the facts of the present case. 30. Respondent Corporation is a ‘Public Corporation’ and is ‘Other Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its action as far as distribution of retail outlet is concerned has to be tested for constitutional infirmities vis-à-vis Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Each and every action of the authority has to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. Each and every action of the Corporation should conform to the norms which are rational, informed with reasons and guided by public interest. 31. In the present case, it cannot be said that the impugned acts of respondent Corporation including arbitrary setting aside of selection of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet were fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. It is obvious from the facts of the case that said decisions were result of favouritism and nepotism. Therefore, the impugned acts of respondent Corporation cannot be sustained in law. 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others Vs. Union of India and others (2012) 3 SCC 1 has held: “86. In Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. (2011) 5 SCC 29 , this Court examined the legality of the action taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to allot 20 acres land to an institute established in the name of Kushabhau Thakre on the basis of an application made by the Trust. One of the grounds on which the appellant challenged the allotment of land was that the State Government had not adopted any rational method consistent with the doctrine of equality. The High Court negatived the appellant’s challenge. One of the grounds on which the appellant challenged the allotment of land was that the State Government had not adopted any rational method consistent with the doctrine of equality. The High Court negatived the appellant’s challenge. Before this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the State relied upon the judgments in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration (2001) 3 SCC 635 , State of U.P. v. Choudhary Rambeer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550 , State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash (2005) 13 SCC 495 and Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies (2009) 6 SCC 171 and argued that the Court cannot exercise the power of judicial review to nullify the policy framed by the State Government to allot Nazul land without advertisement. 87. This Court rejected the argument, referred to the judgments in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 , S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427 , Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K (1980) 4 SCC 1 , Common Cause v. Union of India (supra), Shrilekha Vidyarthy v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 , LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 , New India Public School v. HUDA (1996) 5 SCC 510 and held: “What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.” 33. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.” 33. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and Annexures P-11 dated 25.08.2010, Annexure P-13 dated 13.09.2010 (to the extent prayed), Annexure P-16 20.12.2012 and Annexure P-18 dated 29.09.2011 are quashed and set aside and the respondent Corporation is directed to allot the retail outlet subject matter of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.