JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14/9/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 872/20, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner aggrieved of the communication/email dated 13/1/2020, whereby, the candidature of the petitioner for award of RO Dealership at Village Gagrana, Tehsil – Merta, District Nagaur under open category advertised on 14/12/2018 was found ineligible. It was indicated that his candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines. 3. Further directions were sought to the respondents to issue LOI for retail outlet dealership and a restraint from allotting the location to any other person. 4. It was inter alia indicated in the petition that the respondent Corporation published an advertisement dated 14/12/2018 for various sites including the location in question. The appellant-petitioner applied on 11/1/2019 and his candidature was considered along with other candidates. By communication dated 16/7/2019, the appellant was informed that he was declared as successful in the draw of lots conducted on 15/7/2019 for selection of RO dealership at the said location. The appellant-petitioner was informed about the further requirements of deposit of initial security deposit, submission of set of documents as specified for processing the application. 5. On 16/12/2019, the appellant-petitioner was informed that the Corporation’s Land Evaluation Committee (‘LEC’) shall visit the site offered by him at the subject location for its inspection and he was requested to remain present personally at the site on 11/1/2020 along with relevant land documents. The appellant sought preponement of date of inspection from 11/1/2020 to 10/1/2020. The LEC inspected the site of the appellant-petitioner on 10/1/2020 and when it inter alia found that 33 KVA HT line was passing through the proposed retail outlet site, a report to that effect was prepared by the LEC, and the same was submitted to the higher authority for consideration. The LEC inspected the site of the appellant-petitioner on 10/1/2020 and when it inter alia found that 33 KVA HT line was passing through the proposed retail outlet site, a report to that effect was prepared by the LEC, and the same was submitted to the higher authority for consideration. Based on the report submitted, the candidature of the appellant-petitioner was rejected vide communication/email dated 13/1/2020 (order impugned) inter alia informing the appellant that LEC found that the land offered did not meet the requirement norms as 33 KVA HT line was passing through the offered land and as noticed, it was informed that his candidature has been found ineligible and that the same may get considered along with Group 3 applicants as per the guidelines. 6. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed inter alia with the submissions that 33 KVA HT line, which was passing through the proposed site was not charged as there was no flow of current on the day it was inspected. It was further submitted that the appellant-petitioner had already taken up the case for shifting of the line from the proposed site and the authority concerned of the AVVNL had processed the case for shifting of the 33 KVA HT line and all the documents in this regard were submitted to the LEC. Further, during pendency of the petition, on 3/2/2020 the line in fact came to be shifted by AVVNL. A further plea was raised in the writ petition that in similar circumstances of allotment of gas agency, wherein, the godown was situated near 33 KVA electric line, the applicant therein was given 14 days’ time for removal of the line, which was denied to the appellant-petitioner. 7. A further plea was raised in the writ petition that in similar circumstances of allotment of gas agency, wherein, the godown was situated near 33 KVA electric line, the applicant therein was given 14 days’ time for removal of the line, which was denied to the appellant-petitioner. 7. The plea raised was contested by the respondent Corporation with the submissions that in terms of the brochure containing guidelines for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlet issued by the petroleum companies, the relevant date, as per Clause 14-H, is the date of visit of LEC, which inter alia evaluates the land for suitability on the parameters, which includes the fact that land does not have HT Line (>11 KVA) crossing and it is specifically indicated that the land not meeting any of the parameters will not be considered and will be rejected and, therefore, as admittedly HT Line was passing over the land proposed by the petitioner on the date of inspection, the rejection was justified. 8. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties while dismissing the writ petition, came to the following conclusion: “The conditions mentioned in the Brochure are very specific, clear and the candidature of a person can be considered within the framework of those guidelines only. It is an admitted position that in the present case, on the date of inspection by the Land Evaluation Committee, the High Tension line was passing through the petrol pump. It is true that there would not have been any charge or there was no current in that line on that day but that cannot be a sole ground to presume that no current will be flown thereafter. It is of common knowledge that once the line has been erected by the electricity department or by the concerned Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, it is erected with the purpose of supplying electricity only. Therefore, to presume this fact that no electricity will flow in that line, is unfounded. Further, the application so preferred by the petitioner for removal of that line has not beenfinally decided by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited nor any assurance has been given by the respondent No. 3-Department till the date of inspection by LEC that it will certainly be removed within a fixed period. Further, the application so preferred by the petitioner for removal of that line has not beenfinally decided by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited nor any assurance has been given by the respondent No. 3-Department till the date of inspection by LEC that it will certainly be removed within a fixed period. The fact of the matter is that the date on which the inspection was conducted by the Land Evaluation Committee, the High Tension line was passing over the land of the petitioner and it was not meeting the criteria as enumerated in the Brochure of the respondent-BPCL. For better appreciation, a close reading of the14-H of the guidelines shows that if any land where HT line is passing or crossing over which the petrol pump has to be established, then that place will not be suitable for the purpose of establishing the petrol pump and in view of the fact that the 33KVA electric line was passing through the area over the subject piece of land, the Land Evaluation Committee has rightly reportedthe matter to the competent authorities and the competent authorities had rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. The assertion of the petitioner that in similar circumstances in a gas godown where the High Tension line was passing through the land in question and 14 days' time was granted for removal of the line, the report of the Land Evaluation Committee was placed before this Court showing that no High Tension line was passing over the gas godown, therefore, there was no question of granting14 days' time to remove the same. Hence, there is no discrimination. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that it was only fortuitous that the inspection by the LEC took place on 10/1/2020, which could not be made the basis for depriving the appellant from consideration of his candidature on account of passing of 33 KVA HT line from the proposed land, which stood removed on 3/2/2020. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that it was only fortuitous that the inspection by the LEC took place on 10/1/2020, which could not be made the basis for depriving the appellant from consideration of his candidature on account of passing of 33 KVA HT line from the proposed land, which stood removed on 3/2/2020. 10. Submissions have been made that the approach of the respondent Corporation has been pedantic and lacks fairness inasmuch as on the date of inspection itself the appellant had informed about the proceedings initiated well in advance for removal of the line, wherein, on 14/8/2019 the amount required for shifting of the line was deposited by the appellant. 11. Submissions were made that based on the material produced by the appellant-petitioner, it could be foreseen on the date of inspection by the LEC that 33 KVA HT line would be shifted and as there is no bar in granting time in the brochure/guidelines, denial by the respondent to reconsider the cancellation, once the line was removed within about 20 days of the date of inspection, is wholly arbitrary. 12. Submissions were also made that in the brochure itself, for some aspects, grant of time is envisaged. Reference was made to Clause 4 (v) (b), wherein, in case of absence of sub-lease in the lease agreement for the land offered by the selected applicant, he would be provided 21 days time from the date of intimation to make suitable amendment/addition to the lease agreement and as such sacrosance attached with the date of inspection has no basis. 13. It was further emphasized that present is not a case wherein the appellant-petitioner has provided incorrect details as on the date of advertisement i.e. 14/11/2018 or date of application i.e. 11/1/2019, no 33 KVA HT line existed at the proposed land at that time and, therefore, action of the respondent is wholly unreasonable and, therefore, cancellation of appellant’s candidature vide communication/email dated 13/1/2020 and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside. 14. Reliance was placed on Sharma Transport vs. Govt. of A.P & Ors. : (2002) 2 SCC 188 , Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 14. Reliance was placed on Sharma Transport vs. Govt. of A.P & Ors. : (2002) 2 SCC 188 , Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (1991) 1 SCC 212 , Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries : (1993) 1 SCC 71 and Andhra Pradesh, Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. : (2022) 5 SCC 484 . 15. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the provisions of brochure have evolved over a period of time and are common to all the petroleum companies. The provisions contained in Clause 14-H pertaining to the land evaluation and visit by the LEC and the requirement of suitability is very specific and it is specifically provided that the land not meeting any of the parameters will not be considered and will be rejected. 16. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that as on 10/1/2020 when the LEC visited the site, 33 KVA HT line was passing through the proposed land and as the parameters as laid down in the brochure were not fulfilled, the LEC had no option but to indicate the said aspect, which resulted in rejection of appellant’s candidature on 13/1/2020. 17. It was submitted that the inspection in question did not take place out of the moon as the appellant was given 10 days’ notice before the date was fixed and the inspection took place in his presence and, therefore, once the land admittedly does not fulfill the requirements laid down, rejection of the appellant’s candidature is justified. 18. It was emphasized that the writ petition was filed on two counts, first being that the line in question was not charged on the date of inspection and that in similar circumstances on allotment of gas agency, for removal of 33 KVA Line near godown, 14 days time was granted by the Corporation. Both the pleas raised are factually incorrect. It was sought to be emphasized that as the appellant-petitioner had approached this Court based on false pleas, the petition was liable to be dismissed on the said count alone. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that indications made in the brochure have to be scrupulously complied with by the applicants/successful candidates/officers of the Corporation so as to maintain fairness and non-arbitrariness. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that indications made in the brochure have to be scrupulously complied with by the applicants/successful candidates/officers of the Corporation so as to maintain fairness and non-arbitrariness. It was emphasized that in case despite existence of 33 KVA HT line during the course of inspection by the LEC, appellant-petitioner’s candidature was not rejected, the other candidates, on account of ineligibility of the petitioner would have justifiably raised hue and cry and, therefore, action of the respondent cannot be faulted on any count. 20. It is submitted that the consistent view of the various courts with regard to date of requirements about the land in question complying with the norms laid down, has been the date of inspection by the LEC and any subsequent improvement/change has been held to be of no consequence. 21. Reliance was placed on K.D.Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. : (2008) 12 SCC 481, Smt. Preeti Sharma vs. Indian Oil Corporation : S.B.C.W.P. No. 17979/2019 decided on 3/12/2019, K.Rajkumar vs. The Head of Divisional Office, Trichy Division, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. : W.P. (MD) No. 15133/2020 decided on 27/1/2021 by Madras High Court (Madurai Bench). 22. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 23. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal, on account of various pleas raised by the parties, by order dated 8/12/2022, a coordinate bench of this Court directed AVVNL to file affidavit clearly indicating whether any 33 KVA HT line was existing over the land in question on 14/12/2018 or 11/1/2019 and whether the said line was active on 10/1/2020. Pursuant thereof, an affidavit has been filed by AVVNL inter alia indicating that on 14/12/2018 or 11/1/2019, 33 KVA HT line was not existing over the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 2423. 33 KVA HT Line was installed in May, 2019 over the land in question and that the said 33 KVA HT line was active on 10/1/2020 and was charged. 24. As noticed herein-before, the initial plea raised by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that on the date of inspection the line in question was not charged and, therefore, the same could not have been termed as a 33 KVA HT line so as to reject the candidature of the petitioner. 24. As noticed herein-before, the initial plea raised by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that on the date of inspection the line in question was not charged and, therefore, the same could not have been termed as a 33 KVA HT line so as to reject the candidature of the petitioner. The said plea, was apparently incorrect in view of the affidavit filed by AVVNL inter alia indicating that the 33 KVA HT line was installed in May, 2019 and was active on 10/1/2020 and was charged. 25. Further, the plea raised regarding time granted for removal of 33 KVA HT Line from near a godown, which in fact formed basis for the learned Single Judge to grant interim order, also has been found to be without any basis. 26. Relevant provision in the brochure, as noticed by the learned Single Judge inter alia reads as under: “H. Land Evaluation: The concerned Divisional/Regional/Territory Office shall inform the selected candidate thru e-mail/SMS at least 10 days before the day of visit by LEC for site evaluation. In case of no response/non-availability of the selected applicant, the candidature shall be cancelled under intimation to the selected candidate through SMS/e-mail. Evaluation of the offered land will be carried out to ascertain land being in advertised area and suitable for development of RO – meeting norms. The parameters under which land will be evaluated by Land Evaluation Committee for suitability are:- ? Land in advertised area/stretch ? Land dimensions as per requirement ? Land meets NHAI norms (for sites on NH) ? Land has no HT line (>11KVA) crossing Land not meeting any of the above parameters will not be considered and will be rejected. Note: Offered land should have minimum frontage & area as specified in advertisement. Minimum Depth perpendicular to the frontage at least at one place, should be available as specified in advertisement. In case the offered land is found to to be suitable, the LEC will submit the recommendation to the Divisional/Regional/Territory head for carrying out FVC of the selected candidate. In case land is not found suitable, the selected candidate will be informed about his ineligibility and selection process will be continued with the balance applicants. However, the candidate would be considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants and intimation will be sent to the candidate." 27. In case land is not found suitable, the selected candidate will be informed about his ineligibility and selection process will be continued with the balance applicants. However, the candidate would be considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants and intimation will be sent to the candidate." 27. A perusal of the above would reveal that for the purpose of evaluation of the land, the selected candidate is required to be informed 10 days before the visit by LEC for site evaluation and the land would be evaluated by the LEC for suitability on four parameters including that the land has no HT line (>11 KVA) crossing. It is further specifically indicated that the land not meeting any of the parameters will not be considered and will be rejected. 28. In the present case, now after filing of the affidavit by the AVVNL it is no longer in dispute that on the date the LEC visited the site, HT Line of 33 KVA was existing over the land and was charged and as such, as a consequence of the stipulations indicated in the brochure, the land was bound to be rejected by the LEC. 29. The plea raised that as the appellant-petitioner had already applied for removal of the line and documents in this regard were submitted to the LEC, the LEC was required to wait for the line to be removed and/or provide a reasonable time to the appellant for removal of the line and failure in this regard vitiates the action of the respondent and that the line was factually removed on 3/2/2020 i.e. within 20 days of the inspection, the action on the face of it being arbitrary deserves to be set aside, apparently has no substance. 30. As noticed herein-before, the stipulation in the brochure which is common/universal insofar as all the Government Oil Marketing Companies in India i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. are concerned and are applicable across the country. 30. As noticed herein-before, the stipulation in the brochure which is common/universal insofar as all the Government Oil Marketing Companies in India i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. are concerned and are applicable across the country. A bare perusal of the clause relating to Land Evaluation does not leave any manner of doubt that the land in question as on the date of inspection must confirm to the four parameters for suitability, as indicated therein and consequence of non-confirmation to any of the said parameters has also been indicated i.e. land not meeting any of the parameters will not be considered and will be rejected. 31. The brochure providing the guidelines on the said aspect nowhere provides grant of opportunity to the candidate to rectify the deficiency, if any, qua any of the norms on which the suitability is to be judged by the LEC. 32. The submission made that qua other parameters e.g. in Clause 4 (v) (b) a provision has been made for granting time of 21 days cannot be a reason to either read the said aspect of grant of time in the present Clause 14-H or to direct the respondents to grant time for the said purpose, as the provisions in the brochure providing for time in the guidelines for certain requirements essentially is a business decision of the oil marketing companies and unless the same is found arbitrary, no direction contrary to the guidelines can be issued. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Southern Power Distribution Power Co. Ltd. (supra) cited by counsel for the appellant referring to the judgments in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) and FCI (supra) inter alia observed as under: “116. Undisputedly, the appellant DISCOMS are instrumentalities of the State and as such, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The public authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good.” It has been laid down that every state action is required to be guided by the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality and guided by public interest and every holder of public office is required to exercise the powers only for the public good. 34. However, arbitrariness/reasonableness/rationality as well as the aspect of public good cannot be examined in isolation and based on the outcome and stand point of an individual case, the same has to be tested as to whether the same generally fulfills the above laid down requirements. 35. Qua clause 14-H, a learned Single Judge in case of K. Rajkumar (supra), wherein, also the HT line had been shifted after the inspection had taken place, came to the following conclusion: “4. It is seen therefrom that if the land has high tension line crossing, it would be rejected as not meeting with the parameters. On the date when the inspection took place, the land in question had a high tension line crossing. Therefore, it was rightly rejected. But the question is whether the petitioner’s case can be reconsidered in view of the removal of the said defect by the shifting of the overhead lines. But then, the respondent/Corporation cannot go beyond the parameters. As the land evaluation criteria would state, once the land is found not suitable, the selected candidate process applicants. However, he would be considered for selection along with Group-III applicants. Now that the defect has been set right, the petitioner can only be considered along with Group-III applicants.” 36. Similarly, a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Ajay Kumar Singh vs. The Union of India & Ors. : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3001/2001 decided on 14/12/2021 came to the following conclusion: “8. In any event, we notice the authority to have arrived at an opinion based on factual matrix, that the site is unsuitable for the reason that the 11 KV HT line passes over the plot. : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3001/2001 decided on 14/12/2021 came to the following conclusion: “8. In any event, we notice the authority to have arrived at an opinion based on factual matrix, that the site is unsuitable for the reason that the 11 KV HT line passes over the plot. Purportedly, petitioner pursued the matter with the authorities for shifting, on which the authorities have taken a decision in the affirmative. But then this would not make the requirement of law for what is required to be seen is the suitability of the site as on the date of consideration of the application for empanelment.” 37. No judgment contrary to the above has been cited. 38. From the above, it is apparent that it has consistently been laid down that the requirement of law is that eligibility on the basis of parameters indicated has to be seen on the date of visit by the LEC and any action subsequent thereto like removal of HT Line, would be of no consequence. 39. The matter has to be examined from yet another angle. It is only fortuitous that within 20 days of the inspection, the HT line has been removed, however, the said aspect cannot from the basis for this Court to come to a conclusion that some time should have been granted to the candidate to get the line removed as the said some time, though in the present case would be sufficient, in a given case it may take months together for the purpose of removal of HT Line and in that case the direction to give time would lead to endless delay and would arm the officers of the oil marketing companies to take decisions, which would then be termed as arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 40. The last submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that on account of subsequent event of removal of HT line within 20 days, as it is a hard case and, therefore, indulgence may be granted, cannot guide us to take a view contrary to the guidelines provided in the brochure. On the aspect of ‘Hard cases’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa : (2020) 19 SCC 430 inter alia observed and laid down as under: 10. ….. On the aspect of ‘Hard cases’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa : (2020) 19 SCC 430 inter alia observed and laid down as under: 10. ….. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, Venkataramiah, J., held that: “13…. exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.” 11. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey held that: “Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: “Hard cases make bad law.” 12. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law.” (emphasis supplied) 41. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. There is no substance in the special appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.