JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner; and (i) The impugned order of Merit Panel (Annex.6) may kindly be declared illegal and be ordered to be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents may further be directed to award the marks for infrastructural facility while treating the land of humble petitioner as owned land and be directed to award granted 25 marks so that humble petitioner would be ranked first and it is further prayed that respondents may kindly be granted LOI and work order in favour of humble petitioner while revising the merit panel for advertised BDA. Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a registered partnership Firm. The respondent no.1-Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement No. IOC/RSO/BITUMEN BDA/22-23/01 and invited the applications for Bitumen Business Development Associates (BDA) in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner applied for the BDA and submitted its form along with the relevant documents before the respondent. 2.1 Thereafter, the respondent vide letter dated 08.02.2023 pointed out certain deficiencies; after completion of the necessary formalities and removal of such deficiencies, the petitioner was called for an interview on 03.03.2023 and on the same day, the result of the interview was declared wherein the private respondent no.3 was awarded 89.12 marks in all, and the petitioner was awarded 86.33 marks; the petitioner accordingly was given 2nd rank in the entire process. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land mentioned by the petitioner is the owned land of the partnership Firm, belonging to one of its partners and not the separate one, as per the sale deed concerned, but the respondents treated the land as a leasehold, without any plausible reason, which is highly illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondents. 3.1. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the land of the petitioner was considered as leasehold and the petitioner was awarded 5 marks lesser than the marks available for the owned land, and was given 2nd rank by the respondents, which is not justified in law. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the guidelines/brochure for selection of the dealers specially provides that the land of the one of the partners would be treated as land of the Firm, and in this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents, but even the same was not dealt with. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was eligible for award of 25 marks in the category of owned land, and had the respondents awarded such marks, then the petitioner would have been ranked 1st in the process in question, and thus, the respondents have committed a grave error of law while taking the impugned action. 3.4. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of V.J. George & Ors. Vs. V.V. George & Ors. (S.A. Nos. 339 & 429 of 2001 decided on 09.04.2010). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Ballani appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 and; Mr. Vinay Kothari, Mr. Mehul Kothari and Mr. Ayush Goyal appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 & 2, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a partnership Firm and Shri Ram Singh Rathore and Shri Gopal Singh are its partners, and therefore, the factors like age, education qualifications etc. were to be individually considered for each of the partners and their average marks were to be taken into consideration, as per Clause 6.1.2. of the guidelines. 4.1. It was further submitted that as per Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a property of the partner(s) cannot be equated with the property of the Firm. were to be individually considered for each of the partners and their average marks were to be taken into consideration, as per Clause 6.1.2. of the guidelines. 4.1. It was further submitted that as per Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a property of the partner(s) cannot be equated with the property of the Firm. The said section is reproduced as hereunder:- “Section 14 - The Property of the Firm Subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by purchase or otherwise, by or for the firm for the purposes and in the course of the business of the firm, and includes also the goodwill of the business. Unless the contrary intention appears, property and rights and interest in property acquired with money belonging to the firm are deemed to have been acquired for the firm.” 4.2. It was also submitted that in the present case, the property is not owned by the partnership Firm, and therefore, the petitioner was not awarded the marks under the category of the land being owned by the petitioner-Firm, as per the guidelines. 4.3. It was further submitted that the relevant clause of the guidelines confers a right upon the respondent-IOCL to reject an application in case to the effect that where any statement made in the application by a candidate concerned is found to be incorrect or false, then such application can be rejected by the respondent-IOCL without assigning any reason. 4.4. It was also submitted that the petitioner offered the land, which was being possessed as a lease land and therefore, the respondent awarded “Zero” mark to the petitioner because the land was not owned by the petitioner-Firm itself; therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 4.5. It was further submitted that the petitioner has violated the guidelines as well as Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and therefore, the entire procedure and impugned action as taken by the respondent-IOCL is sustainable in the eye of law. 4.6. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Arjun Kanoji Tankar Vs. Santaram Kanoji Tankar (C.A. No. 1008 of 1966 decided on 18.04.1969), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. 4.6. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Arjun Kanoji Tankar Vs. Santaram Kanoji Tankar (C.A. No. 1008 of 1966 decided on 18.04.1969), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015, decided on 08.09.2015) and Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2022, decided on 31.01.2022). 4.7. Reliance was also placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Saraswati Rice and General Mills & Ors. Vs. Wazir Chand & Ors. (RSA Nos. 3333 & 3334 of 2010, decided on 03.03.2021). 5. In rejoinder arguments, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Firm that the land in question was purchased by the both the partners for the partnership-Firm; both the partners entered into an agreement, whereby it was decided that Shri Gopal Singh will purchase the land for the partnership Firm. 5.1. It was also submitted that the property purchased for partnership-Firm is liable to be considered as a partnership Firm’s property, as per Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the respondent-IOCL invited the applications for the BDA and the petitioner applied for the BDA before the respondent-IOCL; thereafter, the respondent-IOCL conducted the interview on 03.03.2023 and on the same day, its result was declared, wherein the private-respondent no.3 was awarded 89.12 Marks and allotted 1st rank, while the petitioner-Firm was awarded 86.33 Marks and was allotted 2nd rank. 8. This Court further observes that the petitioner is a partnership Firm and Shri Ram Singh Rathore and Shri Gopal Singh are two of its partners. The land in question was offered as an owned land and not a partnership Firm’s land. This Court also observes that the land in question was owned by Shri Gopal Singh one of the partners of the petitioner-Firm, in his individual capacity, and therefore, it cannot be treated as petitioner-Firm’s land. Thus, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 9. This Court also observes that the land in question was owned by Shri Gopal Singh one of the partners of the petitioner-Firm, in his individual capacity, and therefore, it cannot be treated as petitioner-Firm’s land. Thus, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 9. This Court further observes that as per the Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, “Subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by purchase or otherwise, by or for the firm for the purposes and in the course of the business of the firm, and includes also the goodwill of the business.. . . .”. 9.1. In the present case, the petitioner offered the land, which was not the property of the partnership Firm, and therefore, the said land was rightly considered as a lease land, and not as the owned land of the petitioner-Firm. 10. This Court also observes that as per the Clause 18.1 of the guideline, the respondent-IOCL has a right to reject the application submitted by a candidate at any stage, without assigning any reason, if any incorrect and false information is furnished by the candidate in the application form and other relevant documents so submitted by the candidates. 11. The judgment cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner also does not render any assistance to its case. 12. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.