JUDGMENT : The appellant before us is an aspirant for dealership of a petroleum high speed diesel outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The location, for which he made the application in response to a public advertisement was Manjhiawn Kala in the district of Garhwa. At the stage of initial evaluation of the appellant’s application, he was empanelled as the first candidate for the purpose of selection as a dealer. But subsequently, after field verification, marks allocated to him as per disclosed norms was reduced and he was downgraded to second position in the panel. The reason for such downgrading was his evaluation on financial capability. The learned First Court had confirmed the act of his downgrading when the appellant approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. There are various parameters on which an applicant for such dealership is evaluated. These parameters appear in the advertisement which was published in the newspapers as well as in a brochure of the oil company. But we are not concerned with all the parameters in this appeal as downgrading of the appellant in the list of empanelled candidates had been done only on evaluation of his financial capability. In the advertisement, under the eighth and ninth columns, estimated investment required for an applicant, excluding the land cost, for the outlet in question was stipulated to be Rs. 15 Lakhs. Further, a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs was stipulated to be the requirement of working capital for operating the retail outlet. This advertisement, however, did not carry any specific stipulation that the applicant must have the said sum of Rs.21 Lakhs in total, readily available at the time of making of the application and thereafter retain such balance. In clause 14 (ii) of the brochure, there was indication as regards allocation of marks under specific heads in respect of individual applicants. That was the methodology for evaluation of capabilities of an individual applicant. It was stipulated under this clause: “Allocation of marks on various parameters in respect of individual applicants. Parameter Sub-heads Description Marks Evaluation Land and infrastructure (Max. That was the methodology for evaluation of capabilities of an individual applicant. It was stipulated under this clause: “Allocation of marks on various parameters in respect of individual applicants. Parameter Sub-heads Description Marks Evaluation Land and infrastructure (Max. 35 marks) Suitable land for retail outlet Having “own land” or having land on long lease (registered) for a minimum period of 30 years as on date of application Having “firm offer” of land 35 _____ 25 Based on the evaluation of the committee as explained in 14(i) above. Max. Marks Finance (Max. 25 Marks) Financially sound Ready availability of Finance (20 marks) Liquid cash in the form of bank balance, Fixed deposits, shares of listed companies etc. Fixed and movable assets includes own land, buildings, shops, house, vehicles, etc. Income includes agricultural income, business income, interest, rent, royalty, etc. duly supported by documentary evidence. 12 4 _____ 4 Based on verifying the documents submitted. Valuation report duly certified by Govt. Approved Valuers in support of assets is necessary. Note: (1) Cash, Jewellery and instruments where the ownership can not be established will not be considered as “Liquid cash” or “Assets”. (2) With regard to source of funds declared by the applicant in the application form, it is necessary that the same would be made available for the RO development purpose as and when required. The applicant should submit an affidavit (Appendix A or A1) in this regard. In case the applicant fails to make available the funds committed at the time when it is actually required or could not substantiate at a later date, the candidature/dealership is liable to be cancelled. 3. The reason for downgrading of the appellant is apparent from a communication dated 5th April, 2014 addressed to the appellant by the Oil Company, a copy of which has been made Annexure “4” to the memorandum of appeal. This communication reads :- “Sub: Dealership selection for Location: Majhiaon Kala, District: Garhwa We write with reference to your dealership application dated 07.12.2011 for the subject location. Interview of the said location was held on 26.06.2012 after which you were declared as the 1st empanelled candidate for the said location. As per the dealership selection procedure, after interviews, based on approvals from the appropriate authority, the process of Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) is carried out, during which verification of all documents of the 1st empanelled candidate is authenticated. As per the dealership selection procedure, after interviews, based on approvals from the appropriate authority, the process of Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) is carried out, during which verification of all documents of the 1st empanelled candidate is authenticated. We give below details of variations in liquid cash amount as observed during FVC vis-à-vis the amount as indicated by you along with your application form:- Total estimated investment required as per advertisement dated 01.11.2011 Rs. 21,00,000/- Total cash requirement under head ‘liquid finance’ to attain full marks Rs. 10,08,000/- Cash in bank as per your application Rs.11,68,484/- Marks obtained by you under the head ‘liquid finance’ as per mark sheet dated 26.06.2012 12 out of 12 Cash in bank as on date of application as observed during FVC Rs.54,869/- Revised marks under the head ‘liquid finance’ as per observation during FVC (12/1008000) x 54869 = 0.65 Overall marks obtained by you as per mark sheet dated 26.06.2012 106.79 Revised overall marks obtained by you as per FVC observation 106.79–12+0.65 = 95.44 Overall marks obtained by the 2nd empanelled candidate as per mark sheet dated 26.06.2012 104.55 As can be seen from the table above, due to the revision in marks under the head ‘liquid finance’, the overall marks obtained by you stands revised to 95.44, whereas the second empanelled candidate has attained 104.55 as per the mark sheet dated 26.06.2012. Hence, kindly note, that your candidature gets revised and becomes second empanelled position for the said location, as per approval received from appropriate authority.” 4. This communication reveals that at the time of evaluation, overall marks allocated to the appellant was reduced from 106.79 to 95.44 and the second empanelled candidate had obtained 104.55 marks. This necessitated interchange of their positions in the panel. The reason for this, according to the Oil Company, was that in his application the appellant had indicated that he had Rs. 11,68,484/- in his bank account but the actual sum he had in his bank account on the day of making of the application was Rs. 54,869/-. We reproduce below the specific disclosure in this regard made by the appellant against serial number 14 of his application, a copy of which has been annexed at page “14” of a supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant. Type of fund Details a/c no. 54,869/-. We reproduce below the specific disclosure in this regard made by the appellant against serial number 14 of his application, a copy of which has been annexed at page “14” of a supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant. Type of fund Details a/c no. etc Name of the holder Relationship Amount (‘) SAVING A/C SBI COURT COMPOUND BRANCH RANCHI A/C NO. 11049048616 RAJIV RANJAN PANDEY OWN 1168484.00 This application was signed on 7th December, 2011 and admitted position is that on that date the appellant had a sum of Rs.54,869/-, which figure has been quoted in the communication of 5th April, 2014. That fact is not in dispute. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, has argued that there was no requirement either in the advertisement or in the brochure that the requisite amount would have to be retained by the applicant at all material times starting from filing of the application till finalization of the dealership question. What was required, according to him, was disclosure of the fact that an applicant had the capability to mobilize the said sum when required. 6. On that point, we accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. But what we find is that the dealership application of the appellant has not been cancelled for failing to keep the aforesaid sum at the time of evaluation process. There is separate marks allocated for ready availability of finance. We have quoted the relevant clause from the brochure on this aspect of the dispute. The appellant’s marks have been reduced while evaluating his financial position on the basis of his availability of liquid cash in bank on the date of making of the application. Case of the appellant is that on the date of field verification he had in his bank account a sum of Rs. 11,51,355/- but on the date of application itself his balance was much lower than what he had disclosed in his application. The appellant has brought to our notice Note: (2) of the aforesaid clause of the brochure which requires making available the source of fund as and when required. But evaluation was done by the Oil Company as regards availability of finance on the date on which the application was made. We also find that there was wrong declaration on the part of the appellant in furnishing such information. But evaluation was done by the Oil Company as regards availability of finance on the date on which the application was made. We also find that there was wrong declaration on the part of the appellant in furnishing such information. We do not think the Oil Company has committed any error in law in evaluating the appellant’s financial position on the date of making of the application. We do not find any error in the result of such evaluation. We do not find the said process to be flawed in any way. 7. In such circumstances, we confirm the judgment of the learned First Court and dismiss the appeal. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.