ORDER : 1. The matter comes up on the second stay application; however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- “A. By appropriate writ, order, direction, the impugned rejection of allotment of retail outlet to the petitioner vide e-mail dated 16th June, 2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By appropriate writ, order, direction, respondent no. 1 i.e. IOCL may be directed to issue Letter of Intent (LOI) to the petitioner. C. By appropriate writ, order, direction, respondents may be directed to adopt fair procedure for granting No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and Letters regarding establishment of Petrol Pump i.e. Retail Outlet..” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-A10 where the reason of rejecting the petitioner’s application for the retailership outlet was 11kv line alongwith the situational disqualification. He further submits that the petitioner shall remove the 11kv line as soon as the allotment is made and the condition is also an unreasonable. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Virendra Singh Rathore Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.827/2022) decided on 31.05.2023, in which, the Hon’ble Division Bench is clearly held that even if the lines were to be removed subsequently then also the time could not have been given. The operation portion of which reads as follows:- “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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the grievance of the petitioner herein is that the impugned e-mail communication dated 16.06.2023 was received by the petitioner from the Head of Divisional Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jodhpur, whereby the application of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited was rejected. 6. This Court observes that the grievance of the petitioner herein is that the impugned e-mail communication dated 16.06.2023 was received by the petitioner from the Head of Divisional Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jodhpur, whereby the application of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited was rejected. As indicated in the said communication, the impugned rejection was done, in pursuance of the finding of ineligibility, recorded by the Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) of the respondent-Corporation, after visiting the site (land) on 22.05.2023, as offered by the petitioner, for the purpose of allotment of the retail outlet in question. 7. This Court finds the present controversy already stood settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide the judgment rendered in the case of Virendra Singh Rathore (supra), and thus, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. 8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.