JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Since these appeals arise from the judgment of the same writ petition, namely, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2595 of 2014, Vibhudesh Kumar vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others, we deem it appropriate that we dispose of these appeals by the following common judgment. 2. Special Appeal No. 268 of 2018 is filed by the Indian Oil Corporation, which was respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition; Special Appeal No. 267 of 2018 is filed by the writ petitioner; whereas Special Appeal No. 242 of 2018 is filed by the party respondent in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the “fourth respondent”). 3. An advertisement dated 12.10.2011 was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) calling for applications for opening of Petrol/ Diesel retail outlet. The writ petitioner filed an application dated 19.11.2011-Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. In terms of the procedure, the application of the writ petitioner was evaluated along with the application of the fourth respondent. The writ petitioner was given 53.98 marks out of 100. The fourth respondent was given 80.98 marks out of 100 and he was placed at the first position. Thereupon, the writ petitioner filed Annexure No. 4 dated 15.01.2013 in terms of Clause No. 18 of the Brochure issued by the Corporation. Since no action was taken, the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1889 of 2013 (Annexure No. 5). This Court, by judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1889 of 2013 directed that the complaint of the writ petitioner, namely, Annexure No. 4 in this writ petition be considered and a decision be taken and till then the action should not be finalized. In fact, the subject matter of the complaint of the writ petitioner was that he got 53.98 marks, whereas he should have been awarded 30 marks towards infrastructure facilities for which he was given zero marks. The Inspection Committee gave 93 out of 100 marks for the infrastructure facilities projected by the writ petitioner, but the L1 Committee, which evaluated the marks, gave him zero marks. The Inspection Committee gave 93 out of 100 marks for the infrastructure facilities projected by the writ petitioner, but the L1 Committee, which evaluated the marks, gave him zero marks. By Annexure No. 6 dated 21.10.2013, it was found, on the basis of the complaints of the writ petitioner dated 15.01.2013 and 23.01.2013, that there was a mistake committed by the L1 Committee in awarding only zero marks to the petitioner in the land parameter and it was further ordered as follows: “Since there was an error by L1 committee in awarding marks to Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar for land parameter and in compliance of order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in WP No. 1889/2013, competent authority has given approval to cancel the merit panel dated 28.12.2012 and re-evaluate L1 marks of all candidates who attended interview.” It be noticed that reference to the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad appears to be a mistake as Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1889 of 2013 was disposed of by this High Court. 4. Pursuant to Annexure No. 6 letter dated 21.10.2013, the portion of which, we have extracted, on 11.03.2014, the following communication was issued to the writ petitioner: “Ref: UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha Dated: 11.03.2014 Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar, Kaushik Bhawan, Mohallah: Gujratiyan, Jaspur, District: U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand-244712 Sub: Selection of RO dealership at Location: Between Lakdi Mandi Choraha and Jaspur Tehsil Office on Patrampur Road, District Udham Singh Nagar State Uttarakhand, Under Open Category. Sir, This is with reference to the interview held on 28.12.2012 for the subject location and the merit panel/mark-sheet declared/displayed on the same date i.e. 28.12.2012. Please refer to our letter vide reference UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha dated 21.10.2013, whereby it was intimated to you, that re-evaluation for the subject location would be undertaken. After the re-evaluation, the competent authority has approved revised mark-sheet, which is enclosed for your kind information and records. As per above referred letter dated 21.10.2013, it was informed to you that the land offered by you was clearly demarcated with dimension and notarized affidavit from other co-owner Sh. After the re-evaluation, the competent authority has approved revised mark-sheet, which is enclosed for your kind information and records. As per above referred letter dated 21.10.2013, it was informed to you that the land offered by you was clearly demarcated with dimension and notarized affidavit from other co-owner Sh. Dinesh Kumar was enclosed with the application and the offered land falls under the category “self with others.” Accordingly, as per re-evaluation you have been now awarded 32.55 marks in place of 0.00 marks awarded earlier under the parameter “Capability to provide infrastructure and facility.” Considering the above changes in marks, revised marks awarded to you is 86.54 as against 53.98 you got earlier and you are now 1st empanelled candidate in the revised merit panel. The above is for your information please. Yours Faithfully, For Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Chief Manager (RS) UPSO-II Encl: Revised mark-sheet. CC: SDRSM, Dehradun DO.” 5. On the same day, it appears that there was another communication, which was addressed to the fourth respondent. The same reads as follows: “Ref: UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha Dated: 11.03.2014 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Shub Vihar, Avas Vikas, Kashipur, District: U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand-244713 Sub: Selection of RO dealership at Location: Between Lakdi Mandi Choraha and Jaspur Tehsil Office on Patrampur Road, District Udham Singh Nagar State Uttarakhand, Under Open Category. Sir, This is with reference to the interview held on 28.12.2012 for the subject location and the merit panel/mark-sheet declared/displayed on the same date i.e. 28.12.2012. Please refer to our letter vide reference UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha dated 21.10.2013, whereby it was intimated to you, that re-evaluation for the subject location would be undertaken. After the re-evaluation, the competent authority has approved revised mark-sheet, which is enclosed for your kind information and records. You have attached KVP for Rs. 2,25,000/- in joint name with no consent from the joint holder, hence 50% of the value of the same was considered during re-evaluation under the sub-head ready availability of finance’ of the head Capability to arrange finance. Considering the 50% value of KVP, you have been now awarded 18.15 marks in place of 18.91 marks awarded earlier under the parameter “Capability to arrange finance” as per reevaluation. Further, vide our letter reference UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha dated 21.10.2013, it was informed to you that the land offered by the applicant Sh. Considering the 50% value of KVP, you have been now awarded 18.15 marks in place of 18.91 marks awarded earlier under the parameter “Capability to arrange finance” as per reevaluation. Further, vide our letter reference UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha dated 21.10.2013, it was informed to you that the land offered by the applicant Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar was clearly demarcated with dimension and notarized affidavit from other co-owner Sh. Dinesh Kumar was enclosed with the application and the offered land by him falls under the category “self with others.” Accordingly, in the re-evaluation he has been awarded 32.55 marks in place of 0.00 marks awarded earlier under the parameter “Capability to provide infrastructure and facility.” Considering the above changes in marks, revised marks awarded to you is 80.22 as against 80.98 you got earlier and you are now 2nd empanelled candidate in the revised merit panel. The revised marks awarded to Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar is 86.54 as against 53.98 he got earlier and now he is 1st empanelled candidate in the revised merit panel. The above is for your information please. Yours Faithfully, For Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Chief Manager (RS) UPSO-II Encl: Revised mark-sheet. CC: SDRSM, Dehradun DO.” 6. When this communication was received by the fourth respondent, he filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014 before this Court. In this writ petition, Court passed an interim order on 04.04.2014. It was to the effect that if the Letter of Intent has not been issued in favour of the writ petitioner in this case, the same may not be issued. Thereafter, on 11.08.2014, the Corporation proceeded to cancel the empanelment of the writ petitioner. The present writ petition came to be filed initially challenging Annexure No. 9 dated 11.08.2014, by which his empanelment was cancelled. The same reads as follows: “Ref: DDNDO/RO/LAKDIMANDI Dated: 11.08.2014 To, Sh. Vibudhesh Kumar, S/o Late Shri Janaradan Prasad Sharma, Kaushik Bhawan, Moh. Gujratiyan, Jaspur, District: Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand-244712 Sub: Cancellation of Empanelment for Retail outlet dealership at Location: Between Lakdimandi Chauraha and Jaspur Tehsil Office on Patrampur Road, District-U.S. Nagar. Sir, Kindly Refer to our letter ref. No. UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha dated 11.03.2014 where you were declared as the 1st empanelled. FIR was conducted by our field officer for the said location against your empanelment. Sir, Kindly Refer to our letter ref. No. UPSO-II/RO/Bet. Lakdi Mandi Choraha dated 11.03.2014 where you were declared as the 1st empanelled. FIR was conducted by our field officer for the said location against your empanelment. During the FIR it has been found that the closing amount shown by you in the application of the subject dealership in S.B. Account No. 448500100010232 was Rs. 5,02,086.00 but during FIR verification it was found that on 19.11.2011 i.e. the date of application, the actual closing balance in the above mentioned account is Rs. 16,686.00 The application form clearly mentions that “Amount given in FDs/Bank Accounts/ and other financial documents as proof for financial capability should be valid as on date of application.” In application you have also given an undertaking that the information given is true to best of your knowledge and belief. Any wrong information/suppression of facts will disqualify from being considered for the dealership. Hence, In view of above and according to the corporation’s policy, your empanelment for the location Between Lakdimandi Chauraha and Jaspur Tehsil Office on Patrampur Road, District-U.S. Nagar has been cancelled. This is without any prejudice to the rights of the corporation. Thanking you, Yours Faithfully, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD) Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager.” 7. Along with the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2014, the writ petitioner also called in question Annexure No. 12, which is an order, passed on the review petition, which is dated 13.10.2014. It was an order passed rejecting the review petition filed by the writ petitioner. While the writ petition was pending, there took place another development and that was in the form of issuance of the Letter of Intent in favour of the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 25.11.2014. On the basis of the same, the writ petitioner amended the writ petition and incorporated a challenge to the same, which is produced as Annexure No. 13. We deem it appropriate also to refer to it: “LOI Ref. No. 2014/IN000355/UTK/000008/1505/00008 Dated: 25.11.2014 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Shri Raghuveer Lal Sindhwani Shub Vihar, Avas Vikas, Kashipur, District: Udham Singh Nagar-244713 Dear Sir/Madam, Sub: Letter of Intent for proposed B Site Retail Outlet dealership at BETWN.LAKDI MANDI CHAURHA and Jaspur Tehsil Office on Patrampur Road, District-UDHAM SINGH NAGAR State Uttarakhand under OPEN category. We refer to your application for award of Retail Outlet dealership and subsequent interview held on 28.12.2012. We refer to your application for award of Retail Outlet dealership and subsequent interview held on 28.12.2012. It is intended to offer you the B Site Retail Outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on the following terms and conditions: 1. You have stated in your application that you are having a plot of land situated in 164 MI. measuring 20 MTS. x 62 MTS. In Village AMRITPUR, JASPUR, District UDHAM SINGH NAGAR on ownership. Accordingly, you are required to make available the particular plot of land as indicated by you along with all the statutory permissions required for the Retail Outlet within a period of TWO months from the date of this letter. 2. You will make all financial and other arrangements for operating the Retail Outlet dealership including the following steps within 6 months from the date of this letter. (i) Follow up with District/Local Authorities in order to ensure that the sanctions for construction of building and other facilities are obtained for operating the subject dealership. (ii) Provide all mandatory facilities i.e. Permanent sales bldg including Public Toilet, Paved/RCC driveway, Yard lighting, Compound wall/ Chain link fencing, Applicable RVI elements, Air facility including electrification, safety equipment and site specific customer service facilities as may be specified by the IOCL from time to time for operating the Retail Outlet. 3. To enable you to operate the above said dealership, we will provide storage tanks and pumps for operating the dealership. 4. For the facilities that may be provided by the Corporation as aforesaid, we will recover from you license fee as may be decided by the Corporation and applicable from time to time. At present, the license fee recoverable is Rs. 13/- per kl on MS and Rs. 11/- per KL on HSD plus applicable taxes in this regard. 5. After completion of the facilities, you shall within a period of one month arrange to obtain Retail Selling License and other permits/permissions/licenses that may be necessary for commissioning and operating the dealership as may be required under any Central/ State Govt./Municipal or Local Authorities which are currently in force. 6. The Corporation will not be held liable for any loss or damage on account of delay that may be incurred in providing you the facilities mentioned above, whatever may be the cause of such failure or delay. 7. You will have to deposit an amount of Rs. 6. The Corporation will not be held liable for any loss or damage on account of delay that may be incurred in providing you the facilities mentioned above, whatever may be the cause of such failure or delay. 7. You will have to deposit an amount of Rs. 200,000.00 towards interest free Security Deposit. The amount will be forfeited in event of termination on account of adulteration/ malpractice. 8. This letter is merely a Letter of Intent and is not to be construed as a firm offer of dealership to you. The dealership to you will, on your complying with the conditions spelt out herein above be confirmed/formalized by an appointment letter and followed by the signing of our Standard Dealership Agreement (a copy of which can be obtained from this office). 9. If already employed you will have to submit acceptance of resignation letter from your employer, prior to the issuance of Appointment Letter by us. 10. If we find that the progress being made by you towards the above is not to our satisfaction, this offer is liable to be withdrawn. 11. The LOI will stand automatically withdrawn and cancelled on the happening of any of the following events: (a) If it is found that you have suppressed and/or misrepresented any material facts in your application submitted for award of subject dealership. (b) If it is found that you are convicted for any criminal/economical offence involving moral turpitude. 12. You will not change the constitutional/legal entity of Retail Outlet dealership without prior written approval of the Corporation. 13. You will always abide by all requirements set forth by the corporation including those relating to quality, quantity, customer service & branding initiatives like XTRACARE as applicable from time to time. 14. In addition to petroleum products, the operation of Non fuel facilities or any other income generating schemes shall be carried out with prior permission from the Corporation and also you will abide by the model developed by IOC if any in this regard. 15. Should you require any further details/guidance, please get in touch with our office at the below mentioned address. IOC Dehradun Divisional Office 25, Nimbuwala, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun Remarks: Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (SARVESH KUMAR SINHA) Sr. 15. Should you require any further details/guidance, please get in touch with our office at the below mentioned address. IOC Dehradun Divisional Office 25, Nimbuwala, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun Remarks: Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (SARVESH KUMAR SINHA) Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I hereby accept this Letter of Intent with all the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Place: Dehradun Date: 25.11.2014 Signature of Dealer Select.” 8. The further relief, which the writ petitioner sought, was a direction to grant Letter of Intent in his favour. It was this writ petition, which was considered and disposed of by the learned Single Judge after exchange of pleadings by the parties. Findings and the relief granted by the learned Single Judge 9. The learned Single Judge found that the Corporation has invoked paragraph no. 17 of the application form while cancelling the empanelment of the writ petitioner. It is further stated that according to the Field Investigation Report, it was found that the closing amount, which was shown by the writ petitioner in the application, standing in the bank account was Rs. 5,02,086/- but during the field investigation, it was found that as on 19.11.2011, which was the date of application, the actual closing balance was Rs. 16,686/- in the account in question. Thereafter, it is stated as follows: “6. The respondent-Corporation has invoked Para17 of the application form while cancelling the empanelment. The detail of amount given by respondent no. 4 is at Page No. 406 of the Paper-book. He has shown in Para 13, a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- in his name. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent no. 4 had only a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. The marks of respondent no. 4 were reduced from 18.91 to 18.15 for giving wrong information qua Kisan Vikas Patra. The respondent no. 4 has declared a sum of Rs. 9,75,000/- towards financial capital. The candidates were required to arrange Rs. 35.00 lakhs towards infrastructure and Rs. 20.00 lakhs towards working capital.” 10. Further, it is stated that the writ petitioner has placed on record the details of his assets about Rs. 98.08 lacs. Thereafter, it was held as follows: “8. It is true that the petitioner should not have shown Rs. The candidates were required to arrange Rs. 35.00 lakhs towards infrastructure and Rs. 20.00 lakhs towards working capital.” 10. Further, it is stated that the writ petitioner has placed on record the details of his assets about Rs. 98.08 lacs. Thereafter, it was held as follows: “8. It is true that the petitioner should not have shown Rs. 5.00 lakhs in the bank deposit, since the amount stood transferred to other account on the date of application i.e. 19.11.2011. The same analogy should have been applied by the respondent-Corporation while considering the case of the respondent no. 4. 9. Respondent no. 4 has also not given true picture on the date of application. His candidature was also liable to be rejected. Respondent no. 4 has given total financial capability of Rs. 9,75,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. The details of remaining amount have not been given. Respondent-Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The distribution of state largesse should be in a just, fair and transparent manner. 10. This Court in WPMS No. 718 of 2014 has only ordered that the Letter of Intent be not issued to the petitioner but in the garb of this order, the respondent-Corporation had got conducted fresh investigation report. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful. However, the respondent-Corporation, on the same facts, has favoured the respondent no. 4 for reasons best known to it. If the petitioner had concealed the material facts, the respondent no. 4 has also concealed the material facts.” 11. Finally, the Court finds that the writ petitioner has failed to place on record any order of this Court whereby the fresh Field Investigation Report was to be got conducted. It was found that there is arbitrariness in the action of the Corporation while cancelling the empanelment of the writ petitioner on 11.08.2014 and issuing of empanelment of Letter of Intent to the fourth respondent on 25.11.2014. Finding arbitrariness in the action in dealing with public property and noting that the action of the Corporation is unreasonable and contrary to the record, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned letter dated 11.08.2014 and the Letter of Intent granted to the fourth respondent on 25.11.2014 were quashed and set aside. Finding arbitrariness in the action in dealing with public property and noting that the action of the Corporation is unreasonable and contrary to the record, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned letter dated 11.08.2014 and the Letter of Intent granted to the fourth respondent on 25.11.2014 were quashed and set aside. The Corporation was directed to re-advertise the location, i.e. between Lakdi Mandi Choraha and Jaspur Tehsil office on Patrampur Road, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 12. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that these three appeals, as we have noticed, have been filed by the parties. As far as Special Appeal No. 267 of 2018, which is filed by the writ petitioner, is concerned, therein, the appellant/writ petitioner challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that having found everything in his favour, according to him, the learned Single Judge erred in directing re-advertising of the location, which we have noticed. The other two appeals are directed against the judgment itself in its entirety. 13. We heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent in the writ petition. Contentions of the parties 14. Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the Corporation is intended to favour the fourth respondent. He would submit that the actual requirement under the norms was that the persons should have capital in an aggregate of Rs. 55.00 lacs, which is broken down as Rs. 35.00 lacs towards infrastructure and Rs. 20.00 lacs towards working capital. He would rather admit that actually in the statement of account, it was indeed shown that a particular amount of Rs. 5,02,286/- was available as on 02.11.2011. The application was dated 19.11.2011. This was not the actual amount standing in the bank account, as on the date of the application, but what transpired was that an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs came to be transferred from this particular account with the Punjab National Bank to another account, which also belonged to the proprietorship firm of the writ petitioner. In this regard, we may at once notice the actual pleading of the writ petitioner in the writ petition itself. 5.00 lacs came to be transferred from this particular account with the Punjab National Bank to another account, which also belonged to the proprietorship firm of the writ petitioner. In this regard, we may at once notice the actual pleading of the writ petitioner in the writ petition itself. The same reads as follows: “It was further mentioned that as far as the mention of Rs. 5.02 lacs is concern as in the statement dated 2.11.2011 it was made clear that Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar/the petitioner herein is also running a seed plant and is a proprietor of the seed plant whose current account no. is 4485007100001351 in Punjab National Bank, branch Jaspur hence on 3.11.2011 Rs. 5 lacs were transferred to this account no. 4485007100001351 from saving bank account no. 448500100010232 with Punjab National Bank, branch Jaspur. Hence this amount of Rs. 5 lacs remained with Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar/petitioner herein himself at the date of submission of the application i.e. on 19.11.2011. On 3.11.2011 Rs. 5.03 lacs credit balance was available in account no. 4485007100001351 and as on 19.11.2011 Rs. 11.01 lacs credit balance was available in this account. It was further mentioned in the review application that for the sake of argument, without admitting, if the difference of amount of Rs. 4.85 lacs on 19.11.2011 is deducted from the total funds available to Sh. Vibhudesh Kumar/petitioner herein i.e. Rs. 98.08 lac - Rs. 4.85 lac = 93.23 lacs, even then it is more than sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the funds according to the norms of IOC Ltd. But the respondent no. 3 herein without considering all these points as mentioned above dismissed the review application of the petitioner herein and to that effect issued a letter dated 13.10.2014 which is wholly illegal, unjust and is liable to be quashed.” 15. Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the statement of account, which was contained in his application in this regard, it was by way of a mistake and he would further contend that the Court may notice that he had made available information, which related to the aspect that he has assets worth about Rs. 98.08 lacs and after reducing Rs. 5.00 lacs still he would have the capacity for Rs. 93.23 lacs, whereas the actual requirement was Rs. 55.00 lacs, as already mentioned. 98.08 lacs and after reducing Rs. 5.00 lacs still he would have the capacity for Rs. 93.23 lacs, whereas the actual requirement was Rs. 55.00 lacs, as already mentioned. He would next, more importantly, complain that the Court may take note of the fact that the writ petitioner came to be elevated to the first position by proceedings of site allocation dated 11.03.2014. This was done on the basis of the admission and the correction of the mistake in not awarding marks for the infrastructure facilities as already noticed. Thereupon, this came to be challenged by the fourth respondent in a writ petition wherein an interim order came to be passed. The interim order was only to the effect that if the Letter of Intent had not already been issued to the present writ petitioner, the same may not be issued. However, seizing upon this interim order, the Corporation has proceeded to carry out the Field Investigation Report and, what is more, it also issued the Letter of Intent in favour of the fourth respondent. This, according to him, is clearly impermissible. Equally under his criticism comes the act of the fourth respondent, who obtained the order of withdrawal in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014, which he had filed calling in question the re-evaluation, as was done by the Corporation, by which in place of the first position, he was relegated to the second position. He would submit that there was no adjudication in that case and this is emphasized to point out that the action of the Corporation is not fair. He would further contend that the Court may consider the facts relating to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, according to him, is abroad (he is living in Russia). He relied on the pleadings in the form of the additional supplementary counter affidavit to show that at the relevant time, the fourth respondent was living in Russia with his wife and was working as a Doctor. He would submit that when the Letter of Intent is issued, it is to be acknowledged by the person in whose favour the Letter of Intent is issued; the acknowledgement is done by signing. He would submit that a perusal of the signatures of the fourth respondent in the application and in the passport with the signature in the Letter of Intent would show that they cannot be his. He would submit that a perusal of the signatures of the fourth respondent in the application and in the passport with the signature in the Letter of Intent would show that they cannot be his. He would further complain about the Power of Attorney holder and he would submit that there is no valid Power of Attorney. The Power of Attorney holder is, in fact, stated to be the direct brother of the fourth respondent. He would submit that the Power of Attorney is only empowered to manage the land and, therefore, this aspect also is highlighted. He also has a case that the marks, which were awarded to the fourth respondent, which were given in respect of the Kisan Vikas Patra, which was relied on by the fourth respondent, has been reduced, but whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, the empanelment has been cancelled. 16. Per contra, Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel for the Corporation would submit that the actions of the Corporation in allocating the site to the fourth respondent were in accordance with law. There was no intention to favour either of the party; it has only acted in terms of the advertisement and the documents, which have been set forth. He would also point out that it is noteworthy that the writ petitioner has not called in question the communication dated 11.03.2014, which was issued in favour of the fourth respondent, by which the writ petitioner came to be placed at the first position and the fourth respondent came to be placed at the second position and without calling into question the same, arguments relating to Kisan Vikas Patra may not lie. He would further submit that on a perusal of the proceedings dated 11.03.2014, which is issued to the fourth respondent, would show that noticing the lacunae in regard to the Kisan Vikas Patra, appropriately there has been a reduction in the marks. He would submit that the writ petitioner came to be placed in the first position and, in fact, there has been an addition of nearly 30 marks in favour of the writ petitioner as a result of the admission and acknowledgement of the mistake committed by the L1 Committee in regard to the infrastructure facilities. 17. Mr. He would submit that the writ petitioner came to be placed in the first position and, in fact, there has been an addition of nearly 30 marks in favour of the writ petitioner as a result of the admission and acknowledgement of the mistake committed by the L1 Committee in regard to the infrastructure facilities. 17. Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would also submit that, in fact, not one but three instances of variance from the documents in the application submitted by the writ petitioner have been detected in the Field Investigation Report. He would submit that the Power of Attorney is a general Power of Attorney empowering the Power of Attorney holder to do various acts including filing appeal and it could not be faulted. As far as Kisan Vikas Patra is concerned, he would submit that the Kisan Vikas Patra was actually produced in original and, therefore, the marks were originally given, as it was noticed and, subsequently, on finding the lacunae, which we have already referred to, by the proceedings dated 11.03.2014 he suffered a reduction in the marks. 18. Going by the reliefs sought, three separate issues would arise. Firstly, the question relates to the legality of Annexure No. 9 dated 11.08.2014 and Annexure No. 12 dated 13.10.2014 (the order passed in the review). Secondly, the legality of the order dated 25.11.2014 by which the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the fourth respondent. Thirdly, whether the learned Single Judge was right in ordering fresh advertisement to be carried out in respect of the location in question. Discussion and Findings 19. As we have already noted, these appeals arise from the writ petition where what was called in question is the action of the Corporation, which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The action of the Corporation in this case relates to the commercial field; to be more precise it pertains to the action of the Corporation in distributing largesse. It is too late in the day to suggest that the actions of the State, be it in the commercial field are not subject to judicial review on the score that the action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it is unfair or is illegal. It is too late in the day to suggest that the actions of the State, be it in the commercial field are not subject to judicial review on the score that the action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it is unfair or is illegal. There cannot be any doubt that the authorities, which come under the umbrella of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are duty bound to act fairly and in conformity with the pre-classified norms by which it has held that its actions will be judged. But at the same time, we may only observe that the judicial review is limited and it would not review a matter as if it is an appellate forum and merit review, ordinarily is not resorted except may be in a case where the action is found to be perverse on the scrutiny of the materials. 20. In this case, before we proceed to appreciate the matter on facts, it is necessary to notice the terms of the advertisement. Clause no. 13.1.1 of the brochure provides for the norms for evaluating the candidates. It provides that the eligible applicants will be evaluated out of a total of 100 marks through a 3 tier process, which comprises of evaluation of the land in terms of the parameters, which was to carry maximum of 35 marks; the Level-1 Committee was to scrutinize the documents and allocate marks with regard to the documents based parameters out of a maximum of 56 marks for individuals and 53 marks for non individuals. Thereafter, the Interview Committee was to carry out a personal interview and it carried a maximum of 9 marks for individuals and 12 for non individuals. The allocation of marks on various parameters is dealt with under separate sub-heads, which included suitability of land for retail outlet under the parameter relating to capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities. Under the parameter capability to provide finance maximum of 25 marks is contemplated for individuals. For ready availability of finance, maximum marks was 20 marks, which, in turn, was split up into 12 marks for liquid cash in the form of bank balance, Fixed Deposits, shares of listed companies etc. 4 marks were to be awarded by way of maximum marks for fixed and movable assets. For ready availability of finance, maximum marks was 20 marks, which, in turn, was split up into 12 marks for liquid cash in the form of bank balance, Fixed Deposits, shares of listed companies etc. 4 marks were to be awarded by way of maximum marks for fixed and movable assets. Finally, in fact, under other various heads it would earn a maximum of 4 marks. The evaluation, which is mentioned in the last column, is to be based on verifying the documents submitted. Valuation report duly certified by the Government Approved Valuers in support of assets is necessary. It is important to notice the Note. The Note, inter-alia, provided that the applicant is to submit an affidavit (Appendix A or A1) to attach authenticity to the documents supplied. It, more importantly, further provided that in this regard in case “if the candidate fails to make available the funds committed at the time when it is actually required or could not substantiate during the interview/at a later date, the candidature/dealership is liable to be cancelled”. It is further provided that the minimum qualifying marks for open category locations is 60 per cent of the total marks. The Brochure further contemplates holding of an interview. Clause no. 17 of the Brochure proceeds to deal with the situation to follow after the holding of the interview. It reads as follows: “17. RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEW: (a) After completion of the interview for a location, result along with the detailed marks scored will be displayed on the notice board of the interviewing location. This list will contain the names of all the candidates who appeared for the interview along with the details of marks scored by each candidate under various parameters. The minimum qualifying marks for any candidate to be eligible for consideration for award of dealership would be 60% of the applicable marks in respect of OPEN category. In respect of reserved categories including OPEN (W), the minimum qualifying marks would be 50% of the applicable marks. In cases where candidate scores NIL marks under the criterion “Capability to arrange Land/infrastructure” the candidate must secure full 25 marks in the criterion “Capability to arrange Finance.” 21. Clause no. 17.1 of the Brochure deals with the Field Verification. In respect of reserved categories including OPEN (W), the minimum qualifying marks would be 50% of the applicable marks. In cases where candidate scores NIL marks under the criterion “Capability to arrange Land/infrastructure” the candidate must secure full 25 marks in the criterion “Capability to arrange Finance.” 21. Clause no. 17.1 of the Brochure deals with the Field Verification. The same reads as follows: “17.1 FIELD VERIFICATION (i) The dealership will be offered to the No. 1 candidate in the merit panel on the basis ofthe interview after necessary field verification and Letter of Intent (LOI) will be issued. (ii) If the no. 1 candidate is not found suitable /fails to full fill the terms and conditions ofthe award of dealership or the award is to be cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the dealership will be offered to the 2nd candidate in the merit panel after necessary field verification. (iii) If the 2nd candidate also fails to full fill the terms and conditions of offer or found- unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, then the dealership will be offered to the 3rd candidate in the merit list. (iv) If the 3rd candidate also fails to full fill the terms and conditions of offer or found- unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, or in case where no 2nd or 3rd candidates are available in the "merit panel" as explained above, the location may be re-advertised at the discretion of IOC. (v) A person who has been issued the LOI would be required to full fill the terms and conditions of the same within the specified time period for issuance of letter of appointment and commissioning of the dealership.” 22. Clause no. 17.2 of the Brochure deals with the validity of the merit panel and it, inter- alia, provides that the merit panel will be valid for a period of one year from the date of commissioning of the dealership. Clause no. 18 of the Brochure deals with the grievance/ complaint redressal system. Under the same, it is provided that if a complaint is established, the action is to be taken under Clause no. 18(B)(ii) of the Brochure. It, inter-alia, provides that the re-evaluation based on documents available on record will be carried out and in case selection is found to be not in accordance with the laid down guidelines. Under the same, it is provided that if a complaint is established, the action is to be taken under Clause no. 18(B)(ii) of the Brochure. It, inter-alia, provides that the re-evaluation based on documents available on record will be carried out and in case selection is found to be not in accordance with the laid down guidelines. Wherever there will be a change of rankings in the merit panel, the revised result will be displayed on the notice board/IOC website, besides separate communication would be sent to all empanelled candidates. It is further most relevant to notice Clause no. 19.2 of the Brochure under the heading ‘Furnishing of False Information’. The same reads as follows: “19.2 FURNISHING OF FALSE INFORMATION 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.” 23. Having noticed the relevant paragraphs of the Brochure, which admittedly are binding on all the parties, we will now turn to the facts. 24. Originally, the writ petitioner got 53.98 marks out of 100. As we have noticed, for an individual falling in the open category, the minimum qualifying marks for being qualified is 60 marks. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not treated as eligible, whereas the fourth respondent, who obtained 80.98 marks, was placed in the first position. The writ petitioner proceeded to invoke Clause no. 18 of the Brochure and filed a complaint on 15.01.2013 vide Annexure No. 4. Since, there was inaction, he approached this Court. This Court intervened and directed the complaint of the writ petitioner to be considered. The complaint of the writ petitioner related to granting of only zero marks by the L1 Committee, despite 93 marks out of 100 being awarded by the Inspection Committee. This complaint found favour with the officials of the Corporation and thereupon, a reevaluation was ordered by proceedings dated 21.10.2013. This reevaluation, in turn, resulted in order dated 11.03.2014 being issued separately to the writ petitioner and to the fourth respondent. 25. The gist of matter, it appears, is that by the said decision, the Corporation set right an error in the earlier evaluation and it was found that the writ petitioner became entitled to 86.54 marks and the fourth respondent was given 80.22 marks. 25. The gist of matter, it appears, is that by the said decision, the Corporation set right an error in the earlier evaluation and it was found that the writ petitioner became entitled to 86.54 marks and the fourth respondent was given 80.22 marks. It is, at this juncture, necessary to notice from the communication, which is addressed to the fourth respondent, that a discrepancy was noticed in regard to the Kisan Vikas Patra. In view of the fact that in the Kisan Vikas Patra an amount of Rs. 2.25 lacs was in the joint name of the writ petitioner and another and consent was not made available, a reduction of marks was made. On the basis of the same, it is sufficient to notice that the fourth respondent was placed in the second position, whereas the writ petitioner came to be placed in the first position. It is this proceeding, which was issued in favour of the fourth respondent, and which was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (M/S) 718 of 2014 and interim order was passed to the effect that if the Letter of Intent has not been granted, it shall not be granted. 26. It is, thereafter, that the Corporation has carried out the Field Investigation Report. The Field Investigation Report in respect of the writ petitioner was carried out on 12.07.2014. The Field Investigation Report in respect of the fourth respondent was carried out on 21.08.2014. It is now time to turn our attention to the Field Investigation Report dated 12.07.2014 in regard to the writ petitioner, as this is the base for the impugned order dated 11.08.2014. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “Variance found as given below: Name of the Bank Type of Account/ Deposit and Account No. Amount shown as per Application Form Actual Amount found during FIR as on date of Form Name of A/C holder and Relation to the Applicant PNB, Jaspur SB A/c No. 448500100010232 502086/- 16686/- Vibhudesh Kumar (Self) SBI, Jaspur SB A/c No. 10963970989 39767/- 10335/- Dinesh Kumar (Brother) PNB Kashipur SB A/c No. 0262000101251918 56975/- 7654/- Dinesh Kumar (Brother)” 27. The reason given in the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 is also the variance found in details provided by the writ petitioner while applying for retail outlet and consequent decision to cancel the empanelment invoking Clause 19.2 of the Brochure. 28. The reason given in the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 is also the variance found in details provided by the writ petitioner while applying for retail outlet and consequent decision to cancel the empanelment invoking Clause 19.2 of the Brochure. 28. We may examine first as to whether the cancellation of the empanelment of the writ petitioner was legal. The first contention, which is raised before this Court is carrying out of the Field Investigation Report by the Corporation. It is contented that the Corporation was not entitled to carry out the Field Investigation during the pendency of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014 and on the basis of the order, which was passed by this Court, which was only to the effect that if no Letter of Intent has been issued, Letter of Intent may not be issued. 29. In order to correctly answer this question, we must consider as to what was the right which was obtained by the writ petitioner on the basis of the order dated 11.03.2014, which was issued in his favour. As per the procedure under the Brochure, the candidates are to be evaluated on the basis of the information furnished by them in the documents submitted along with the application. On the basis of the same, the marks are awarded. An interview was also to take place. In this case, the interview took place on 28.12.2012. On the basis of the same, the writ petitioner was found entitled only to 53.98 marks. The writ petitioner complained about it and the complaint was found to be with merit and, consequently, the marks of the writ petitioner were increased to the level that he came to be ranked as number 1 in the panel of the candidates. The fourth respondent, who was having higher marks on the earlier occasion, came to be relegated to the second position. The Field Investigation remained to be carried out for verifying the credentials supplied. There can be no doubt that the Corporation was well within its right to carry out the Field Investigation, because since the valuation is done initially on the basis of the contents of the documents as produced along with the application, they have to be cross checked and found whether they are correct or not. It is only after the Field Verification is done that the Letter of Intent can be issued under the norms. It is only after the Field Verification is done that the Letter of Intent can be issued under the norms. Even if Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014 had not been filed or an interim order had not been passed, the Corporation was obliged to undertake the exercise of carrying out the Field Investigation to cross check the veracity of the statements contained in the application along with the particulars provided by the documents produced with the application. The fact that the Field Investigation Report in this case was carried out, as we noticed on 12.07.2014 qua the writ petitioner and on 21.08.2014 qua the fourth respondent, when the writ petition was pending, does not in any way militate against the validity or acceptability of the Field Investigation Report. We do not see anything illegal in carrying out of the Field Investigation Report on the dates as aforesaid. Therefore, we repel the argument of the writ petitioner that the Field Investigation Report was not correctly carried out or it was carried out illegally in violation of interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 30. In fact, in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has proceeded as if a fresh investigation was carried out. In paragraph no. 11, as we have noticed, the Court points out that the parties have failed to place on record any order of this Court whereby a fresh Field Investigation Report was to be got conducted. This is not a case where the Field Investigation Report was carried out earlier to 12.07.2014 and 21.08.2014. The Field Investigation Report, which was carried out on the said dates, was the first Field Investigation Report which was carried out independently in relation to each of the candidates. The findings, which have been rendered by the learned Single Judge to the contrary, cannot be accepted as correct. We have already repelled the contention that it was not proper to conduct the Field Investigation Report during the pendency of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014. 31. The Field Investigation Report, which we have extracted, undoubtedly, reveals that the writ petitioner though claimed that he had Rs. 5,02,086/- in a particular account number, but as matter of fact he only had Rs. 16,686/-. 31. The Field Investigation Report, which we have extracted, undoubtedly, reveals that the writ petitioner though claimed that he had Rs. 5,02,086/- in a particular account number, but as matter of fact he only had Rs. 16,686/-. The writ petitioner had indeed produced the statement of account with the application in relation to that account to show that as on 02.11.2011 he had an amount of Rs. 5,02,086/-. Quite clearly, in terms of the parameters provided in the Brochure, the case of the writ petitioner came to be assessed and evaluated on the basis of placing reliance on the veracity of the statement contained in the bank account, which accompanied the application. The application was in fact dated 19.11.2011. This is the procedure, which is contemplated. The case of the writ petitioner appears to be that he has only transferred an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs from the said account, in respect of which the statement of account was produced, to another account, which too is operated by him in connection with a proprietorship firm, which, according to the fourth respondent, was a current account and will have no impact, as that amount is also available with him. We are unable to accept this contention. The specific statement, which he made and he induced the Corporation on that basis to believe that he had Rs. 5,02,086/- as on the date of the application on the basis of the statement of account. This, in fact, has turned out to be untrue and false and there is no dispute about this. The only case set up by the writ petitioner is that it has been transferred to another account, which too stands in his name, and amount is available to him. We at once notice that the whole purpose is to find out the capability of the candidates to have liquid cash and the capability to run the petrol outlet. This is one of the parameters to judge the suitability of the candidates. If it is transferred into another account of the proprietorship firm of another business, it is quite probable that the said amount may get spent and may not turn out to be available and, therefore, the very argument that it still remained available for the purpose of the business itself cannot be accepted. If it is transferred into another account of the proprietorship firm of another business, it is quite probable that the said amount may get spent and may not turn out to be available and, therefore, the very argument that it still remained available for the purpose of the business itself cannot be accepted. That apart, even if it is assumed that it is there in some another account, we would think that it would clearly not militate against the fact that he had made wrong statement in his application. The making of the wrong statement in itself justified the Corporation in invoking both the Note and also Clause no. 19.2 of the Brochure, which we have adverted to. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has a case that the Note only contemplated that the candidates must possess the funds when it is required for the purpose of the project. We would think that it would amount to overlooking the latter limb of the said Note as it contemplates that if a candidate fails to make available the funds committed at the time when it is actually required or could not substantiate during the interview or at a later date, the candidature/dealership is liable to be cancelled. Therefore, it is not as if the Corporation is powerless. Financial capability is assessed at the time of documentary review for assessing the ready availability of finance. Therefore, it is not as if the power to cancel is limited to the eventuality of the candidate failing to make available the fund at the time when it is actually required. That apart, Clause no. 19.2 of the Brochure also specifically contemplates 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 is liable to be cancelled forthwith and dealership terminated even in case if it has been commissioned. Therefore, all that is required for invoking Clause no. 19.2 of the Brochure is furnishing of false information, which is discovered at any point of time, be it before or after the appointment as a dealer. Therefore, all that is required for invoking Clause no. 19.2 of the Brochure is furnishing of false information, which is discovered at any point of time, be it before or after the appointment as a dealer. Such is the importance attached to the making of truthful statements by the candidates in the procedure evolved by the Corporation and this is attributable to the fact that in the first instance, the Corporation proceeds on the basis that the candidates have revealed the truth and have not made any false statement. Any dilution of the power with the Corporation to deal sternly and strictly in terms of these clauses would sound a death knell for the transparency of the proceedings, which, in fact, are to be followed by an authority falling under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 32. The argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that even de hors the amount, which is mentioned, namely, Rs. 5.00 lacs, which has turned out to be untrue, he had large sums of money available and, therefore, there was no occasion to invoke the power, does not appeal to us. We have already indicated that we may not be justified in doing merit review. We are concerned with the legality of the action of the Corporation in canceling the empanelment. At once it may be noticed that, in fact, the learned Single Judge, in one of the portion of the judgment, has proceeded to record as if the Letter of Intent was issued to the writ petitioner and it was that, which was cancelled. In fact, Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner very fairly contended that he was never issued the Letter of Intent and what was issued was only a letter empanelling him. The cancelling of the empanelment is a matter, which is governed by the Note in para 13 and para 19.2 of the Brochure, which we have already indicated. Therefore, we would think that the fact that the writ petitioner may have other sources to finance the project may not stand in the way of the Corporation in canceling the empanelment of the writ petitioner, which is what has happened in this case by the impugned order dated 11.08.2014. 33. We may also notice another aspect. Therefore, we would think that the fact that the writ petitioner may have other sources to finance the project may not stand in the way of the Corporation in canceling the empanelment of the writ petitioner, which is what has happened in this case by the impugned order dated 11.08.2014. 33. We may also notice another aspect. In the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, he has not called in question the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge, who also has found that in regard to the account, the writ petitioner did not have Rs. 5,02,086/- as was held out by him in his application. Therefore, we hold that the Corporation was well within its right to cancel the empanelment by the impugned order dated 11.08.2014. 34. The next question which would arise is whether the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the Letter of Intent dated 25.11.2014 issued in favour of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, going by the terms of the communication dated 11.03.2014, obtained 80.22 marks. The said communication is not called in question by the writ petitioner. There is a case for Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the order was not communicated to the writ petitioner; it is only communicated to the fourth respondent. He would submit that in the communication to the writ petitioner, which is of the same date i.e. 11.03.2014, he is only informed that he is placed at the first position. The fact remains that this communication dated 11.03.2014 addressed to the fourth respondent is not called in question. We have to take the document as it is. This would mean that the fourth respondent came to be placed in the second position. We have already noticed Clause No. 17 of the Brochure. Certain rights accrue to the persons, who are placed in the merit list. The fourth respondent being placed at the second position was entitled to be given the Letter of Intent in case the person placed in the first position loses that position by virtue of cancellation of the empanelment. We have already noticed Clause No. 17 of the Brochure. Certain rights accrue to the persons, who are placed in the merit list. The fourth respondent being placed at the second position was entitled to be given the Letter of Intent in case the person placed in the first position loses that position by virtue of cancellation of the empanelment. It is, apparently, on the basis of the same that when the cancellation took place of the empanelment of the writ petitioner by order dated 11.08.2014, which took place on the basis of the Field Investigation Report, which was carried out on 12.07.2014 and further on the basis of the Field Investigation Report dated 21.08.2014 carried out in respect of the fourth respondent, it was found that there was no variation and he being placed in the second position in terms of the parameters in the Brochure, he was favoured with the Letter of Intent. Thus far, there can be no reproach attached with the action of the Corporation in issuing the Letter of Intent. 35. The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Letter of Intent was issued during the pendency of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014 and that writ petition was later withdrawn does not appeal to us. We have already found that there is nothing wrong in the Corporation proceeding with the Field Investigation Report, during the pendency of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014. There was no order of the Court restraining the Corporation from carrying out the Field Investigation Report, which was well within its right and in fact, was the duty of Corporation. If that be so, two consequences followed. Firstly, it was found in the Field Investigation Report that the empanelment of the writ petitioner was illegal and was liable to be cancelled due to variance. Secondly, the Field Investigation Report, in regard to the fourth respondent, did not reveal any variation. Already by proceedings dated 11.03.2014, he stood placed at the second position with certain rights, as we have indicated, namely, to be allotted the dealership in case the person placed in the first position is removed from that position. This is exactly what happened. Therefore, the fact that all this took place during the pendency of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014 will not advance the case of the writ petitioner. This is exactly what happened. Therefore, the fact that all this took place during the pendency of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 718 of 2014 will not advance the case of the writ petitioner. The fact that the writ petition was withdrawn was only, apparently, consequent upon relief being granted to the fourth respondent during the pendency of the writ petition in the form of Letter of Intent being granted to him. So there can be no adverse consequences from the same. 36. The further question, which has been raised, in relation to the Letter of Intent being issued to the fourth respondent, is that it is being issued by way of showing favour to him. The chief and the most important objection would appear to be about the aspect relating to Kisan Vikas Patra. In the application filed by the fourth respondent under the head Source of Finance, the fourth respondent has indicated Rs. 5,05,000/- under an account and it was shown as Self. It is immediately, significant to notice that the Field Investigation Report carried out in respect of the fourth respondent reveals that the claim in this regard was correct. In other words, it was found that he indeed had Rs. 5,05,000/- as on the relevant date. The total amount claimed would appear to be Rs. 9,75,000/-. The difference between Rs. 9,75,000/- and 5,05,000/- apparently, was made up by adverting to a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/-. Against the same, we find that in the application form it is mentioned KVP- Rajesh Kumar Self and the amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- is mentioned. About the expansion of KVP, there is no dispute that it is Kisan Vikas Patra. In other words from the application what was held out was that the fourth respondent had Kisan Vikas Patra in a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- and that was self. Pursuant to the decision taken on the complaint of the writ petitioner dated 21.10.2013, which we have adverted to, it was decided to go in for a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation was carried out and it revealed, on the basis of perusal of the documents in original themselves, that the fourth respondent though had produced the Kisan Vikas Patra, in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- it was in the joint name with no consent from the joint holder. The re-evaluation was carried out and it revealed, on the basis of perusal of the documents in original themselves, that the fourth respondent though had produced the Kisan Vikas Patra, in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- it was in the joint name with no consent from the joint holder. Therefore, it was decided by the order dated 11.03.2014 that 50 per cent of the value of the same was considered for the purpose of re-evaluation under the sub-heading Ready availability of Finance of the heading Capability to provide Finance. This re-evaluation, which is carried out, it must be remembered, was done initially on the complaint of the writ petitioner himself regarding his being awarding zero marks for infrastructure facilities. The marks originally awarded to the fourth respondent were reduced and in place of 80.98 marks, he was awarded 80.22 marks. By getting these marks, the fourth respondent, since he got more than minimum marks required (60), continued to be eligible and because he secured lesser marks than the writ petitioner, was placed as the second empanelled candidate. 37. Though, it is true that this document may not have been communicated to the writ petitioner as such, the fact remains that this document was brought on record (according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he obtained this document under the Right to Information Act). When the writ petitioner originally challenged his removal from the panel by way of order dated 11.08.2014 on the dismissal of the review application, it could be said that he need not have challenged the order dated 11.03.2014, but the moment the Letter of Intent was issued to the fourth respondent by the order dated 25.11.2014, since the Letter of Intent was a natural consequence of the order dated 11.03.2014, we find merit in the contention of the Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel that the non-challenging of the order dated 11.03.2014 would be fatal to the case of the writ petitioner. This is for the reason that the fourth respondent had already secured a right under the procedure to be given the Letter of Intent being the person at the second place consequent upon the cancellation of the empanelment of the writ petitioner by the order dated 11.08.2014. 38. Coming to the Kisan Vikas Patra, a question has been raised regarding the fairness of the action of the Corporation. 38. Coming to the Kisan Vikas Patra, a question has been raised regarding the fairness of the action of the Corporation. In fact, the learned Single Judge has also proceeded to make certain observations against the fourth respondent i.e. Rajesh Kumar, as we have already noticed. The learned Single Judge, in fact, in paragraph no. 6 of the judgment has noticed that the fourth respondent has shown a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- in his name. But the fact of the matter, according to the learned Single Judge, is that the fourth respondent had only a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. This finding, we find, is unsustainable, as in the Field Investigation Report dated 21.08.2014 carried out qua the fourth respondent, the fact that the fourth respondent had Rs. 5,05,000/- was cross checked and found to be correct. Further, the marks, it is stated, have been reduced on the basis of wrong information qua the Kisan Vikas Patra. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to refer to the requirement to arrange Rs. 35 lacs towards infrastructure and Rs. 20 lacs towards working capital. We would think that the pointed question related to the sub-heading and the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in referring to the question relating to the amounts required towards infrastructure and working capital. The effect of the wrong information, as it is found, we will consider a little later. In paragraph no. 9 of the judgment also, the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the fourth respondent has not given the true picture on the date of the application and his candidature was liable to be rejected. It is further pointed out that the fourth respondent has given total financial capability of Rs. 9,75,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. The details of the remaining amount have not been given is another finding. We are unable to agree. The total amount, which was given by way of financial capability under a particular sub-heading by the fourth respondent was Rs. 9,75,000/-. It was made up of Rs. 5,05,000/- in a bank account and the balance of Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. Therefore, the finding, that the details of the remaining amount after providing for the amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of KVP, is not given, cannot be accepted as correct. 9,75,000/-. It was made up of Rs. 5,05,000/- in a bank account and the balance of Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. Therefore, the finding, that the details of the remaining amount after providing for the amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- by way of KVP, is not given, cannot be accepted as correct. This finding, runs contrary to the document, which is produced by the writ petitioner himself, namely, the Field Investigation Report carried out qua the fourth respondent, which revealed that he had Rs. 5,05,000/- apart from the Kisan Vikas Patra. 39. Coming to the Kisan Vikas Patra, it is true that in the application at page no. 408 of the writ petition paper book, it is mentioned, inter-alia, that the fourth respondent had KVP in his name and, thereafter, it is mentioned self and the amount mentioned is Rs. 4,70,000/-. It is true that the Corporation being a body falling under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to treat all applicants fairly and with an even hand and there cannot be any room for favoritism or any kind of unfair dealing with any person. But the question would be whether in these facts, it could be said, when the fourth respondent had claimed Rs. 4,70,000/- in Kisan Vikas Patra in his name with the word ‘self’ and it is found out that an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was in the name of the writ petitioner with somebody else, that it should entail invoking of powers under the Note or under Clause 19.2 of the Brochure. We would think there is a qualitative difference between the vice which afflicted the application of the writ petitioner and the lacunae in the application of the fourth respondent. In the case of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner made a specific claim, which was sought to be supported by the statement of account in a particular account that he had sum of Rs. 5,02,286/-. The Field Verification carried out clearly reveals that that statement was false. He did not have that amount as on the relevant date, which we have already found justified the action under the relevant paragraphs. 40. In the case of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent, however, has definitely made a claim of possession of Kisan Vikas Patra having the value of Rs. 4,70,000/-. He did not have that amount as on the relevant date, which we have already found justified the action under the relevant paragraphs. 40. In the case of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent, however, has definitely made a claim of possession of Kisan Vikas Patra having the value of Rs. 4,70,000/-. He has produced the documents in original relating to the Kisan Vikas Patra. It turns out that some of the Kisan Vikas Patra was in the joint name of the fourth respondent and somebody else. It is not a case where any wrong/false document has been produced or an irrelevant document has been produced. The document indeed related to the Kisan Vikas Patra. In fact, there is no pleading as such in the writ petition in regard to this aspect. The case is sought to be projected in the rejoinder affidavit, and even proceeding on the basis that rejoinder affidavit can be treated as part of the pleadings, that there is no specific pleading relating to the effect of insertion of the word self. Furthermore in the Field Investigation Report i.e. the Field Investigation Report in regard to the fourth respondent, it has been found that the Kisan Vikas Patra has been duly verified with the original. So, the Kisan Vikas Patra was there and even the value of the Kisan Vikas Patra is not in dispute. The only lacuna that is found out is that all the Kisan Vikas Patra was not in his own name, but was in the joint name with somebody else. On the basis of the same, the fourth respondent has suffered diminution in the marks, which he has originally obtained. We have already noticed that the document, by which the same took place, though was well within the power of the writ petitioner to amend the writ petition and challenge, has not being challenged. Therefore, we would think that in the facts of this case, the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in bringing this as a case under arbitrariness in relation to the challenge to the order dated 25.11.2014. 41. As far as the arguments regards Power of Attorney is concerned, it appears that it is a general Power of Attorney, which is a registered document, entitling the Power of Attorney holder to represent the fourth respondent. 41. As far as the arguments regards Power of Attorney is concerned, it appears that it is a general Power of Attorney, which is a registered document, entitling the Power of Attorney holder to represent the fourth respondent. The writ petitioner has raised a contention that the fourth respondent was not available in India to sign the Letter of Intent and there is a discrepancy in the signature. In the first place, we may notice that none of it relates to the evaluation of the fourth respondent’s merit or it does not pertain to the illegality of grant of the largesse in his favour. It relates to the formalities to be complied with after the decision is taken to issue the Letter of Intent. There is no denial in the rejoinder affidavit that the fourth respondent was here in India at the relevant time, in terms of the passport entries, which he has made available. 42. We also stand assured by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that when everything is done on the basis that it is in respect of a person, who is residing abroad, after the Letter of Intent is issued, he would have to abide by the conditions to ensure that he will be in India to run the outlet. Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the fourth respondent has given an affidavit that he will abide by the Rules of the Corporation. The fourth respondent, in fact, has a definite case that he does not have any employment as such; he is not a Doctor and he intends to come back to India. In such circumstances, having regard to the totality of facts, we would not think that it would be a ground for the writ court to interfere with the Letter of Intent granted in favour of the fourth respondent, as was done by the learned Single Judge. 43. In such circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Corporation and fourth respondent, namely SPA No. 268 of 2018 and SPA No. 242 of 2018 will stand allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside. Necessarily, therefore, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, namely, SPA No. 267 of 2018 is only to be dismissed. We do so. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Corporation and fourth respondent, namely SPA No. 268 of 2018 and SPA No. 242 of 2018 will stand allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside. Necessarily, therefore, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, namely, SPA No. 267 of 2018 is only to be dismissed. We do so. The judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside and the writ petition will stand dismissed.