JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the second and third respondents, Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. In leading Writ C No. 38463 of 2015, Jai Prakash Gupta (petitioner) has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 4.6.2015 passed by the Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, U.P. State Office-I, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and the display mark sheet dated 7.8.2013 issued by the third respondent with regard to selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra at Parsauni Dixit (on Bhawani Chapar to Mairwa Road), Block Bankata, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria and for direction commanding the respondents to select him as a dealer of Kishan Sewa Kendra for the location in question. 3. In the connected Writ C No. 20195 of 2016 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned Letter of Indent dated 16.3.2016 issued by Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Gorakhpur in favour of respondent No. 4 subject to final outcome of Writ C No. 38463 of 2015 filed by the petitioner. 4. The facts of both the aforesaid writ petitions, according to the petitioner, in brief are that an advertisement dated 12.10.2011 was published by Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appointment of Kisan Sewa Kendra (Retail Outlet) Dealers at difference places. Petitioner also proceeded to apply pursuant to the said advertisement in question for the dealership at Parsauni Dixit (On Bhawani Chhapar to Mairwa Road), Deoria shown at Sl. No. 370 for general category candidate. For establishment of Kisan Sewa Kendra, land measuring 20m x 20m was required and petitioner claims that as the land in question was a joint holding of family members, the requisite documents alongwith affidavits of his two real brothers have been filed with the clear standing that if the petitioner is selected, they have no objection as co-owners of the land in question and the petitioner will establish the KSK Retail outlet on the land in question. 5. The petitioner received a letter dated 4.5.2012 for survey of the land in question and he remained present on 14.5.2012 wherein the petitioner got 97 marks out of 100 by the Land Evaluation Field Officer and Engineer. 5. The petitioner received a letter dated 4.5.2012 for survey of the land in question and he remained present on 14.5.2012 wherein the petitioner got 97 marks out of 100 by the Land Evaluation Field Officer and Engineer. The land offered by the fourth respondent was found to be 18mtrs x 14mtrs, which is less than the minimum area of the land (20m x 20m) and he was awarded “zero” mark by the Land Evaluation Field Officer and Engineer. The petitioner has offered the plot No. 99 area 0.587 hectare. Thereafter the interview was held on 7.8.2013 in the office of third respondent in which the petitioner was awarded 24.25 marks out of 35 marks in the head of “Capability to provide Infrastructure and Facility”, whereas the fourth respondent, who was awarded ‘zero’ mark by the Land Survey Field Officer and Engineer, in most arbitrary manner has been awarded 32.25 marks. The said action is illegal and arbitrary and against the terms and conditions given in the brochure. Aggrieved by the said decision, declaring the petitioner as unqualified, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner followed by additional letter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani dated 13.10.2014. The claim in question has been rejected by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 4.6.2015 on the premises that the offered plot by the first empanelled candidate meets the desired dimensions. 6. Initially the leading writ petition was taken up on 14.7.2015 and a Division Bench of this Court had proceeded to pass following order : “Since issues with regard to exact dimensions of the plot offered by the respondent No. 4 have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is desirable that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to himself verify the measurements. In our opinion, the Advocate Commissioner would be entitled to a fee of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as expenses for his visit to Deoria. The petitioner, in order to establish his bona fide, will deposit a sum of Rs. 35,000/- by way of Bank Draft in the name of Registrar General within three days. Put up on 17th July, 2015." 7. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 20.7.2015 and the Court had proceeded to pass following orders : “In compliance to the Court’s order dated 14.7.2015, petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- through Bank Draft with the Registrar General of this Court. Put up on 17th July, 2015." 7. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 20.7.2015 and the Court had proceeded to pass following orders : “In compliance to the Court’s order dated 14.7.2015, petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- through Bank Draft with the Registrar General of this Court. We are of the opinion that for getting the exact dimensions of the plot in dispute (Plot No. 116), determined, an Advocate Commissioner be appointed by this Court. We appoint Sri Aishwarya Kumar Singh, Advocate, Bar Council Registration No. 03156/20.5.2013, for the purpose. The Advocate Commissioner will visit Village Parsauni Dixit Bankul Bankata, Tehsil Bhatparrani, District Deoria on 1st August, 2015. The Advocate Commissioner, who lives in Allahabad, with go by train in the name and style of Chauri Chaura Express on 31st July, 2015, and he may visit the disputed plot at any time, after 10.00 a.m., on 1st August, 2015. The District Magistrate, Deoria is directed to provide all assistance to the Court Commissioner. He may provide a room in the Government accommodation available at Bhatparrani and a Car to visit the place and an officer not below the rank of SDM alongwith such revenue officers, who shall accompany the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner is also directed to take photographs of the place of plot, at the time when the measurement is actually done, and he may submit his report to the Court alongwith photographs on 14th August, 2015. The Registrar General is directed to give Rs. 35,000/- to the Court Commissioner, within 48 hours, through an account payee cheque. If there is any difficulty in the reservation of Tickets to the Court Commissioner, the Registrar General shall also provide necessary assistance in that regard. Put up this matter on 14th August, 2015.” 8. Sri Aishwarya Kumar Singh, Advocate Commissioner submitted his report before this Court on 14.8.2015 stating that he had visited the site in question on 1.8.2015 alongwith the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatpar Rani, Tehsildar and other revenue authorities of the area concerned. At the time of inspection the petitioner and other persons of the village in question were present. The plot No. 116 is surrounded by three side roads and on another side, plot No. 115 is situated. At the time of inspection the petitioner and other persons of the village in question were present. The plot No. 116 is surrounded by three side roads and on another side, plot No. 115 is situated. As per Khatauni the map denoted ‘A’ and ‘M’ is 73 meters, land of ‘M’ and ‘L’ is 25 meters, therefore, it is admitted fact that the land of ‘A’ and ‘L’ is 77.16 meter (of disputed plot No. 116), which was offered by the fourth respondent (plot No. 116) of which Kauleshwar is the original land holder. 9. Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled for 35 marks in the category in question but he has been illegally awarded only 24.25 marks by the third respondent and the same is against the terms and conditions of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. At the time of survey of the land, the fourth respondent was awarded ‘zero’ mark against the offered land and inspite of this, he has been awarded 32.25 marks out of 35. The minimum area required by Indian Oil Corporation i.e. 20mtrs x 20mtrs is not available on the spot and as such, the fourth respondent is liable to be given ‘zero’ mark in place of 32.25 marks. The petitioner has been awarded ‘zero’ mark inspite of the fact that he has filed experience certificate. The land offered by the fourth respondent is not only disputed but the area in revenue record is less than the minimum requirement for establishing Kisan Sewa Kendra and as such, the impugned orders are unsustainable on the face of record. Due to influence of real brother of the fourth respondent, who is also running a petrol pump namely Lar Petrol Filling, Deoria, the licencing authority has proceeded to pass the order impugned. 10. Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak further submitted that a perusal of the reports dated 23.11.2014 and 27.11.2014 submitted by the Revenue Officer; the report of the Advocate Commissioner and as per report of the Tehsildar dated 2.6.2016 would clearly go to show that the land offered by the fourth respondent is not 400 sq. 10. Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak further submitted that a perusal of the reports dated 23.11.2014 and 27.11.2014 submitted by the Revenue Officer; the report of the Advocate Commissioner and as per report of the Tehsildar dated 2.6.2016 would clearly go to show that the land offered by the fourth respondent is not 400 sq. mtrs i.e. 20m x 20m, which is the essential requirement for the establishing the Kisan Sewa Kendra and as such, the plot offered by the fourth respondent is contrary to the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 and U.P. Roadside Land Control Rules, 1964. In support of submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India and others, (2005) 7 SCC 484 . 11. On the other hand, Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for for the Corporation has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the present matter the Corporation has rightly proceeded as per the brochure, which provides detailed methodology/procedure for selection of Petrol/Diesel Rural Retail Outlet (Kisan Seva Kendra) Dealers and at no point of time the Corporation had proceeded to give any undue weightage or marks to the private respondents. The fourth respondent stands at serial No. 1 in the select list for establishing Kisan Sewa Kendra and the third respondent has proceeded to issue Letter of Intent dated 16.3.2016 in his favour. He further contended that the paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the report of the Court Commissioner reflect the incorrect dimension and measurement of the plot in question as the length of shop/house of Shri Kuleshwar is approx. 15 meters and thereafter there is further temporary construction of the respondent, which is of a dimension 5.5x5.5 meter but the said dimension has not been taken note of. Both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging in the present case is that in reference of selection of dealers for Petrol/Dealer Kisan Seva Kendra in rural areas Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has framed scheme known as “Selection of Petrol/Diesel Kisan Seva Kendra (Rural Retail Outlet) Dealers”. In the said scheme in question, Clause 14 deals with providing of preference for applicants offering suitable land and Clause 14 (b) defines owned land. Clause 14 of said scheme is being quoted below : “14. In the said scheme in question, Clause 14 deals with providing of preference for applicants offering suitable land and Clause 14 (b) defines owned land. Clause 14 of said scheme is being quoted below : “14. PREFERENCE FOR APPLICANTS OFFERING SUITABLE LAND Availability of suitable land for setting up of KSK retail outlet at the advertised location is the essence of the project. Wherever IOC expects the applicant to have arrange suitable land for the dealership, the same is mentioned against each location in the advertisement. The suitability of land will be assessed by IOC as per norms given in para 15 of Brochure. The land and details offered alongwith the application alone will be considered for this purpose and applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently. The land offered by the applicant can be in either of following category: (a) Owned land: The following will be considered as owned land: (i) Land owned by the applicant exclusively (ii) Land owned by the “family” members exclusively (iii) Land owned by the applicant exclusively with “family” members (iv) Land owned by the applicant alongwith others provided share of applicant in the land meets IOC’s requirement. The land falling in category (ii), (iii) & (iv) will be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to applicant producing the consent on notarized affidavit signed by all other co-owners. The definition of “Family Unit” will be as per para 6 of Brochure. In additional to above, for locations to be developed as Dealer Owned site (marked ‘Yes’ in column 6 of advertisement)the land on long terms lease (for a minimum period of 19 yrs 11 months) will also be considered as owned land subject to above conditions. In other words, for locations to be developed as Corporation Owned site (where ‘Yes’ is marked in column 5 of the advertisement), leased land will not be considered. (b) Firm Offer of land: In addition to land covered under para (a) above, applicants also have the option to offer land with firm offer of land from land owner/s. Such offer from land owner/s should be in the form of notarized affidavit giving details of land, Khasra/Khatauni No., name of village/location, ownership details etc. (b) Firm Offer of land: In addition to land covered under para (a) above, applicants also have the option to offer land with firm offer of land from land owner/s. Such offer from land owner/s should be in the form of notarized affidavit giving details of land, Khasra/Khatauni No., name of village/location, ownership details etc. NOTE : (i) However, if an applicant, after selection on the above basis, is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period of TWO months from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), IOCL will have the right to cancel the allotment of dealership mad to the applicant. The suitability of the Land will be decided by IOCL. In this case IOC will provide all fixed facilities at its cost at the site so taken from the applicant on purchase/long term lease basis. However, there is no commitment from IOCL for taking the offered Land from the applicant. (ii) Wherever IOC has advertised that it also expects the applicant to provide suitable land at the advertised location to IOC on sale/long lease, their willingness to transfer such land to IOC should be clearly indicated in the applicant under Para 12(f). Considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angel and rates applicable to IOC, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership/long term lease to IOC would be considered. However, there is no commitment from IOC for taking the offered Land from the applicant. (iii) Documents For Offered Land The applicant should furnish atleast one of the following document (in support of ownership) which should have been issued/revalidated on or after the date of advertisement: (i) Khasra/Khatauni or any equivalent revenue document of Certificate of the land. Or (ii) Registered sale-deed/Registered lease deed or any other type of ownership transfer deed/document in favour of applicant. (iv) Copy of the lease agreement or allotment letter issued by Government/Semi-Government/Autonomous bodies like DDA, NOIDA, HUDA etc. will be considered for ownership of land offered. (v) In addition to documents in para (iii) and (iv) above, following additional documents are also required, as applicable. SN Situation of ownership Land record) Share of applicant’s Documents required In addition to land ownership/Revenue Evaluation as 1 Self Full Nil Owned land 2. will be considered for ownership of land offered. (v) In addition to documents in para (iii) and (iv) above, following additional documents are also required, as applicable. SN Situation of ownership Land record) Share of applicant’s Documents required In addition to land ownership/Revenue Evaluation as 1 Self Full Nil Owned land 2. Exclusively by the “Family” members Nil Notorized affidavit by all owners in favour of applicant Owned land 3. Self exclusively with “Family” members Part Notorized affidavit by all other Co-owners in favour of applicant Owned land 4. Self with others Share of applicant more than IOC Notorized affidavit with demarcation of land (Portion of land to be given for requirement dealership by the applicant) Owned land 5. Self with others Share of applicant more than IOC requirement Notarized affidavit without emarcation of land (Portion of land to be given for dealership by the applicant) Firm Offer 6. Self with others Share of applicant less than IOC requirement Notarized affidavit Firm Offer 7. Others Nil Notarized affidavit Firm Offer 8. Where the land falling in Owned land category as described in above category at Sr. No. From 1 to 4 is not sufficient for development of retail outlet and land in category 5 to 7 is also offered to meet IOC’s requirement Nil or Part Document as applicable for category at Sr. No. 1 to 4 and Document as applicable for category at Sr. No. 5 to 7 Firm offer 13. The provisions quoted above are relevant extract of brochure meant for selection of Petrol/Diesel Kisan Seva Kendra (Rural Retail Outlet) Dealers and as far as own land is concerned, qua the same a categorical mention has been made under Clause 14 (a) that the land falling in category (ii), (iii) and (iv) will be considered as belonging to the applicant producing the consent on notarized affidavit signed by all other co-owners and the definition of “Family Unit” shall also be extracted as per para 6 of Brochure. Note (v) appended to Clause-12 (E) of the format of application form provides that the minimum plot size for development of KSK should be 20 mts (frontage) x 20 mts (depth) excluding PWD land as stipulated by the State Government. 14. Note (v) appended to Clause-12 (E) of the format of application form provides that the minimum plot size for development of KSK should be 20 mts (frontage) x 20 mts (depth) excluding PWD land as stipulated by the State Government. 14. We have occasion to peruse the record in question and what we find is that the Corporation had issued an advertisement in daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ on 12.10.2011 inviting applications for setting up retail outlet dealerships at different places. In pursuance thereof the petitioner also applied for location mentioned at serial No. 370 on 29.1.2011. The petitioner alongwith other candidates were interviewed by Corporation on 7.8.2013, whereafter a provisional marksheet/select list was displayed in which the fourth and fifth respondents were placed at Sl. Nos. 1 (83.75 marks) and 2 (76.50 marks) respectively and the petitioner is shown at serial No. 3 (76.25 marks). As per the merit list, under the category of land and infrastructure, the petitioner was awarded 24.25 marks, whereas the fourth and fifth respondents were awarded 32.25 and 23 respectively. The petitioner made the complaint in the distribution of retail outlet on various irregularities and the complaint so made by the petitioner was duly looked into in great detail and only thereafter the Executive Director, U.P. State Office-I, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had proceeded to pass the impugned order. 15. From the perusal of record this much is also reflected that the petitioner has proceeded to file complaint against the private respondents on the ground that the petitioner had offered the land in plot No. 99 with dimensions as 35m x 35m owned by him alongwith his real brothers. The Interview Committee informed him of getting 97 marks out of 100 marks in the offered land, however, after declaration of results he came to know that his offered land was evaluated on 25 marks and not on 35 marks, and he has been awarded 24.25 marks on the offered land instead of 34.25 marks. It is also alleged that he has been awarded ‘zero’ mark under the head of ‘experience’ whereas he should have been awarded maximum marks for getting the said dealership and as such, the marks were not rightly awarded to them. It is also alleged that he has been awarded ‘zero’ mark under the head of ‘experience’ whereas he should have been awarded maximum marks for getting the said dealership and as such, the marks were not rightly awarded to them. It was agitated that the land of the first empanelled candidate Ashish Kumar Jaiswal was evaluated by the concerned Field Officer and the Engineer and at that time his offered land was found much less than required as per instructions contained in the format of the application form. At the time of offer, the fourth respondent has 18.5 mtrs land in the South and 13.5 Mtrs land in the north and he did not have the minimum required land recorded in his favour. This much is also reflected from the record in question that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 3 of the select list and the fifth respondent was placed at serial No. 2, who has already abandoned his claim as he has already got another agency and as such, battle remains only between the fourth respondent and the petitioner. 16. Once such is the factual situation that is so emerging in the present case, that the first empanelled candidate/fourth respondent has 18.5 mtrs land in the South and 13.5 Mtrs land in the north and note (v) appended to Clause-12 (E) of the format of application form clearly mentions that the minimum plot size for development of KSK should be 20 mts (frontage) x 20 mts (depth) excluding PWD land as stipulated by the State Government, then at the time of survey the first empanelled candidate did not have the minimum required land recorded in his favour. 17. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the land offered by the fourth respondent is less than the dimension as has been required for establishment for Kisan Seva Kendra. The opinion that has been formed by the Indian Oil Corporation, in the facts of the case, cannot be subscribed by us. Consequently, in the facts of the case, we do not approve of the decision making process undertaken by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on such score as has been mentioned in order dated 4.6.2015. 18. The opinion that has been formed by the Indian Oil Corporation, in the facts of the case, cannot be subscribed by us. Consequently, in the facts of the case, we do not approve of the decision making process undertaken by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on such score as has been mentioned in order dated 4.6.2015. 18. In such view of the matter, impugned order dated 4.6.2015 passed by the second respondent; display mark sheet dated 7.8.2013 issued by the third respondent with regard to selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra place Parsauni Dixit on Bhawani Chapar to Mairwa Road, Block Bankata, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria and the Letter of Indent issued by Senior Division Retail Sales Manager, Marketing Division dated 16.3.2016 in favour of the fourth respondent cannot be maintained and they are accordingly set aside. 19. Consequently, in the facts of the case, we proceed to pass an order asking the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Marketing Division, Gorakhpur to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. 20. In the result, both the writ petitions stand allowed.