JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner responded to the advertisement issued by the IOC, through online, on 25.11.2018, for Retail Outlet Dealership, in the District of Lohit. Acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner, the IOCL, through communication dated 19.01.2019, informed the petitioner that he was found qualified for the dealership and he should be personally present along with a photo identity card, issued by any Government Department on 01.02.2019, at 10:00 Hrs, in the address specified for draw of lots. Subsequently, vide communication dated 02.02.2019, the IOCL informed the petitioner that he was declared to be a successful candidate in the draw of lots, which was conducted on 01.02.2019, for retailing outlet dealership, in the location concerned. He was, therefore, requested to remit Rs. 30,000/- towards Initial Security Deposit by online within 10 days from date of the communication and also to submit the set of documents specified in the said communication. 3. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner again on 01.03.2019, was informed that the Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) will be visiting the site offered by the petitioner on the location concerned for inspection on 11.03.2019 and therefore, he was required to be personally present on that day along with all relevant land documents. The petitioner, accordingly, was present on the site on the date fixed and the Land Evaluation Committee visited the spot. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, the IOCL, vide communication, dated 04.04.2019, informed him that the Land Evaluation Committee on visiting the site offered by the petitioner on 11.03.2019, found the same to be not meeting the required norms. Accordingly, the offer of the petitioner was found to be not suitable. The petitioner was however informed that his candidature may be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per guidelines. It may be stated herein that the candidature of the petitioner was for Group-1 applicants. Aggrieved with the said communication, the petitioner sent a number of e-mails to the IOCL, which however, was not responded to by them. As such, the petitioner having no alternative is before this Court. It may be stated herein that the candidature of the petitioner was for Group-1 applicants. Aggrieved with the said communication, the petitioner sent a number of e-mails to the IOCL, which however, was not responded to by them. As such, the petitioner having no alternative is before this Court. 4. Mr. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as was informed to the petitioner, he was present on his plot of land when the Land Evaluation Committee came to visit the site on 11.03.2019. The petitioner all along was under the impression that he will be selected and be given the Retail Outlet Dealership by the IOC. However, vide the impugned notification, dated 04.04.2019, the petitioner was found to be ineligible for being awarded the dealership. He submits that no reason has been assigned by the IOCL as to why his application was rejected despite the petitioner having written to the IOCL on many occasions via e-mail. He submits that the respondent IOCL has now selected the respondent no. 5 for giving the Retail Outlet Dealership. He therefore, submits that the impugned decision of the respondent authorities concerned is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 5. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, IOCL, on the other hand submits that the guidelines and modalities for granting Retail Outlets is given in the brochure prepared by the IOC. He submits that regular retail outlets can be given on Highways (National or State) within the Municipal limits of a town, under Clause-1 of the brochure. Clause-14 of the brochure provides for the selection procedure. The same provides that there shall be draw of lots amongst eligible candidates depending upon the type of Retail Outlet site as defined in Clause-3. Clause-14 (E) (xii) of the brochure provided that in case the land is not found suitable by the Land Evaluation Committee, intimation to the candidate regarding rejection of the offered land and subsequent consideration of candidature along with Group-3 applicants is to be made. He submits that the detail of the norms followed by the Land Evaluation Committee is provided under Clause-14 (H). The Land Evaluation Committee upon visiting the site offered by the petitioner, found the same to be not feasible and accordingly, a report was prepared on 02.04.2019, wherein, the petitioner himself was also a signatory. He submits that the detail of the norms followed by the Land Evaluation Committee is provided under Clause-14 (H). The Land Evaluation Committee upon visiting the site offered by the petitioner, found the same to be not feasible and accordingly, a report was prepared on 02.04.2019, wherein, the petitioner himself was also a signatory. He therefore, submits that under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance for having not been selected for running the Retail Outlet. The learned counsel also submits that unless the decision taken by the respondent authority is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable or biased, the same may be not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 . 6. Mr. K. Tama, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 adopts the argument made by Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the IOCL and he also submits that the petitioner has not submitted any land documents in the writ petition so as to appreciate the stand taken by him that his plot of land falls within the road from Wakro to Tezu in the District of Lohit. As for the respondent no. 5, he has duly annexed his land documents to show that the land falls squarely within the area required by the IOCL to grant the Retail Outlet. He submits that since the official respondents have clearly made a finding through the Land Evaluation Committee that the land of the petitioner is not suitable for granting the retail, the Court may not interfere with such findings and also on the subsequent selection of the respondent no. 5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818 (ii) Municipal Corporation vs. Bvg India Limited, (2018) 5 SCC 462 7. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 8. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 8. As may be seen, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite having been successful in the draw of lots for being granted the Retail Outlet in the District of Lohit, his application has been rejected subsequently, by the respondent authorities after a visit was made by the Land Assessment Committee on his land. As per the brochure, Advertisement was issued by the respondent authorities through online and to which, the petitioner responded. When lots were drawn, the petitioner was found to be successful and accordingly, he was informed to be present on the spot for verification by the Land Evaluation Committee, in terms of Clause-14 E(xii) and Clause-14(H) of the brochure. As per the said provisions, evaluation of the offered land is to be carried out to ascertain land being in the advertised area and also its suitability for development of the Retail Outlet. The parameters under which the land is to be evaluated by the said committee has also been specified, namely, land in advertised area/stretch, its dimensions as per requirement, meeting the norms of National Highway Authority of India for sites on National Highway and that there is no High Tension Line of the 11 (KVA) crossing. The Land Evaluation Committee visited the plot of the petitioner as notified to him on 11.03.2019 and as per the report prepared, land of the petitioner was not found to be suitable. It was found to be about 250 meters from MG road circle. The verification report, dated 02.04.2019, was also duly signed by the petitioner indicating his presence and knowledge of the verification that was done. When the Land Evaluation Committee constituted for the purpose went visiting at ground zero and has come up with the finding that the land of the petitioner was not suitable for grant of Retail Outlet, it will not be possible for a writ Court to have a different view especially when there is no other report or even an indication to the contrary. It is further noticed that against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the petitioner has also not filed any reply-affidavit disputing the stand taken by the respondents. It is further noticed that against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the petitioner has also not filed any reply-affidavit disputing the stand taken by the respondents. The settled principle of law is that unless the Court finds that there has been illegal, arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable exercise of power on the part of the authority concerned, Court would refrain from exercising its power of judicial review. 9. In the given facts of the present case, it is seen that the respondent authorities concerned have only adopted the norms and procedure prescribed by the relevant Clauses of the brochure to select eligible applicants for Retail Outlet. Merely because the petitioner was successful in the drawing of lots, the same by itself cannot be the basis to grant him the Retail Outlet, since the selection procedure included spot verification by the Land Evaluation Committee. The said Committee having come to its finding, this Court has no reason to disagree with the same. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance for having not been selected. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. 11. In view of the finding arrived at, there will be no requirement to discuss the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.