Holding

The High Court erred in directing the issuance of a Letter of Intent; the competent authority may re‑advertise and conduct a fresh selection, and the order is set aside.

Summary

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (appellant) invited applications for petrol/diesel retail outlets in Maharashtra. Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani (respondent) applied and was placed second in the first merit list, but the selection was cancelled after complaints about financial documentation and attested papers. A second round of interviews made Gwalani the sole candidate, yet further complaints led to another inquiry and the selection was again cancelled; the respondent’s candidature was later rejected because his 'Relationship Affidavit' did not follow the prescribed format. The Bombay High Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226, directed the company to issue a Letter of Intent to the respondent, effectively overruling the competent authority’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered, as the competent authority is empowered to discard a vitiated panel and order a fresh selection, and therefore set aside the High Court order, allowing the appeal and directing the authority to re‑advertise the outlet.

Issues considered

The propriety of the High Court's interference under Article 226 in directing issuance of a Letter of Intent to the respondent.
Whether the irregularities discovered in the selection process justify a fresh selection/re‑advertisement of the dealership.
The legal effect of a non‑conforming 'Relationship Affidavit' on the respondent's eligibility.
The scope of judicial review over administrative decisions concerning selection panels.

Subjects

public distributionpetrol dealershipselection processirregularitiesArticle 226writ of mandamusfresh selectioncompetent authorityrelationship affidavitre‑advertisement

Judgment

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1125

SR. DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL A
CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH POA HOLDER & ORS.
v.
ASHOK SHANKARLAL GWALANI
(Civil Appeal No. 9101 of 2012)
B
DECEMBER 14, 2012

[SWATANTER KUMAR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKOPADHAYA, JJ.]

Public Distribution - Allotment of petrol/diesel dealership C
- First round of selection for allotment cancelled due to
irregularities in the selection process - In the second round
of selection, respondent selected - This selection also
cancelled due to irregularities - In the third round of selection,
candidature of the respondent rejected - Writ petition by D
respondent challenging rejection of his candidature - High
Court allowing the appeal, directing the company to issue
Letter of Intent in favour of the respondent - On appeal, held:
Decision to cancel the selection was taken by the competent
authority - High Court ought not to have interfered with such E
decision in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.

Appellant-company invited applications for grant of
petrol/diesel retail outlets (dealership) for vai:ious
locations in the State of Maharashtra. The respondent, F
alongwith others, applied for one of the locations. In the
first round of the selection process, 'K' was selected by
the Interview and Screening Committee. The respondent
was placed at 2nd and 3rd position in the merit list by the
Interview Committee and Screening Committee G
respectively. On complaint, the Investigation Officer
placed the respondent at 1st position. Ultimately the
selection was cancelled and all the candidates were
called for re-interview. Thus in the second round of
1125 H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A selection, after re-interview, the respondent was found to
be only candidate in the merit panel. Complaints were
lodged against the same. Inquiry Commission was
appointed to investigate into the complaints. Writ petition
was also filed against the company by 'K' challenging the
B order whereby the merit list where he was declared as No.
1 candidate was cancelled. High Court dismissed the
petition. After inquiry, the complaints were found to have
merit and therefore, the company again advertised for re-
interview of all the candidates. Thus in the third round of
C selection, the Committee, before whom the applications
of all the eligible candidates were placed, rejected the
candidature of the respondent on the ground that
'Relationship Affidavit' was not as per the format.
Respondent's writ petition, challenging the rejection of
his candidature was allowed by High Court. Hence the
0
present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The Interview Committee, Screening
E Committee and the Investigation Officer assessed the
three candidates in three different groups due to which
the position. of the candidates changed in the merit list
prepared by the Interview Commitstee, Screening
Committee and the Investigation Officer. The High Court
F has not noticed and discussed the aforesaid facts and
without discussing the further developments as taken
place after 24.12.2008 (i.e. the date the respondent was
placed in merit list in the second round of selection)
directed the appellants to issue the Letter of Intent in
favour of the respondent. Though the High Court noticed
G the stand taken by the appellants that the 'Relationship
Affidavit' submitted by the respondent was not as per
format, it failed to discuss the effect of such an
incomplete affidavit in the matter of selection. [Paras 15
and 16] [1139-F-H; 1140-A]
H
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.C.L. TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1127
SHANKARLAL GW,A.LANI

2. Generally, if an irregularity is detected in the matter A
of selection or preparation of a panel, it is desirable to
have a fresh selection instead of re-arranging the panel
which is found to be vitiated. In the present case, the
Authority empowered to appoint, is the competent
authority to decide as to whether the panel should be B
discarded and there should be a fresh selection in view
of the facts. In such circumstances, the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have
interfered with the decision of the competent authority in
canceling the selection. Accordingly, the impugned order C
is set aside with a liberty to the Competent Authority to
re-advertise the petrol/diesel retail outlets in question and
to make a fresh selection in accordance with law. [Paras
17 and 18] [1140-B-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. D
9101 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2010 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 5032 of 2010.
G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Jaideep Gupta, Rahul Narayan, E
Meenakshi Arora, Prashant Bhushan, Sumeet Sharma, Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Ruchi Misra, Partha Sil and Kunal Chatterjee
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave F
granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned
order dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No. 5032 of 2010 wherein the High G
Court has granted the Writ of Mandamus directing the Indian
Oil Company to allot the dealership of the site located at Thane
Belapur Road, Village Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra to
Shri Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani (hereinafter referred to as the
"respondent")
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A 3. The relevant facts as pleaded by the appellant are as
follows:
On 11th June, 2005, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the "Company") published a
proclamation in leading newspapers and invited applications
B for grant of petrol/diesel retail outlets (dealership) for various
locations in the State of Maharashtra. The respondent on 14th
July, 2005, amongst others applied for the same. Interviews
were conducted on 9th-10th December, 2005. One Mr. Nilesh
L. Kudalkar was placed at the top of the merit panel while the
C respondent was placed second and one Mr. K. Srinadha Rao
was third. However, since the difference between the marks of
the top three candidates was within 5%, the result of the
interview was kept in abeyance in accordance with the policy
of the company dated April 7, 2005. A Screening Committee
D was established which reviewed the markings and carried out
another interview of the three candidates. The result was
declared on 4th April, 2006 and Mr. Nilesh L. Kudalkar was first
in the merit panel.
4. Being aggrieved respondent and Mr. K. Srinadha Rao
E both made complaints on 10.4.2006 and 19.4.2006
respectively to the company alleging irregularities in the
selection process. In accordance with the policy dated 1st
September, 2005, an investigation was made by the Company
into the allegations made by them. It was found, among other
F things, that the respondent and Mr. Srinadha Rao had not been
marked correctly as regards their financial capability and that
both had failed to provide the attested documents as had been
specifically required under the advertisement. Since the
allegations in the complaints were found to have merit, the
G selection was cancelled and all the candidates were to be
called for re-interview. In the meantime, on 28th April, 2006, one
Mr. Pritesh Chhajed, who was an M&H Contractor operating
on the site filed Civil Suit No. 230/2006 before the Thane Sr.
Division Court seeking an injunction against the company from
H terminating the contract and evicting him from the land. He was
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.C.L. TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1129
SHANKARLAL GWALANI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKOPADHAYA, J.]

unsuccessful in the same and filed an appeal before the A
Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the High Court
on 27th June, 2008 and he was asked to vacate the site by
December 31, 2008.
5. Re-interviews were conducted on 22nd and 24th
December, 2008. The respondent was found to be the only B
candidate in the merit panel. However, complaints were
received from Mr. Pritesh Chajjed (who had also appeared in
the interviews) on 26th December, 2008 and from Mr. K.
Srinadha Rao on 16.12.2008, 23.12.2008, 30.12.2008,
2.01.2009 and 10.02.2009. Again on 30.12.2008, a one man C
Inquiry Commission was appointed to investigate the
allegations contained in the complaints. Also on 14.1.2009, Mr.
Nilesh L. Kudalkar filed a Writ Petition vide no. 113 of 2009
against the company for cancelling the merit list and declaring
him to be the no.1 candidate. The High Court of Bombay was D
pleased to dismiss the aforementioned writ petition in April,
2009.
6. In the meantime, the inquiry instituted by the Company
revealed that the complaints made by various persons had
merit. ' E

7. Therefore, on 6th August, 2009, the appellants sought
approval from their management for re-advertisement of the
location. On 18th August, 2009, the Company management
advertised for re-interview of all the candidates including
F
scrutiny of all documents from the initial stage in order to
remove all errors from the selection process. Since the code
of conduct for elections was in force, the re-interview was
deferred till its withdrawal.
8. In December, 2009, the L-1 Committee was appointed G
before which the applications along with other documents of all
ten eligible candidates were placed. The Committee submitted
its report. The candidature of the respondent was rejected on
the ground that the 'Relationship Affidavit' was not as per the
format. H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A 9. On 3rd June, 2010, respondent was communicated
about the rejection of his application.
10. Being aggrieved respondent filed a writ petition being
WP(C) No. 5032 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court on
17.6.2010 praying inter alia for issuing of an appropriate writ
B directing the appellants to allot the dealership at the site as per
the advertisement dated 11.6.2005 and setting aside the letter
dated 3.06.2010 to enforce the decision of the Selecting
Committee dated 24.12.2008, which was allowed by the
impugned order.
c According to the appellants, considering that all the former
merit panels were vitiated on account of grave errors, including
complaints received with regard to all the interviews, the
Company is desirous of undertaking the selection process de
novo by re-advertising the location.
0
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 8th
December, 2009, L-1 Committee was nominated in view of the
complaints filed by one Srinadhrao and Shri Pritesh Chajed.
These complaints were thoroughly investigated and report
E dated 24th March, 2009 was received by the Company.
Pursuant to the said report the Company decided to look into
the matter from the scrutiny level and to re-interview all the
candidates so as to remove the defects in the selection
process. Ri:i-scrutiny of all the applications was made and
F during that process the documents including the application
submitted by the respondent found to be suffering from
deficiencies. It was contended that the affidavit submitted by
the respondent was not as per the format and, therefore, his
application was liable to be rejected as per the policy.
G Consequently, the impugned letter was issued to the
respondent.
12. The aforesaid fact was disputed by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. They invited the
affidavit filed by the Company in Writ Petition No. 113 of 2009
H
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.C.L. TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1131
SHANKARLAL GWALANI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKOPADHAYA, J.]

wherein they supported the selection process as well as the A
merit list prepared by the Selection Committee on 24.12.2008.
In the said affidavit, the allegation that the respondent was less
meritorious was denied by the Company. The stand of the
Company was that the decision to award dealership to the
respondent did not suffer from any manifest error, equity, fair B
play and justice. In the said case, the Company pleaded that
the decision in favour of the respondent was transparent and
was not motivated on any consideration other than probity. The
said case was filed by second person challenging the selection
of the respondent. The Division Bench of the Bombay High C
Court after hearing both the parties vide order dated 17th April,
2009 in Writ Petition No. 113 of 2009 held that the High Court
could not sit in appeal over the decision of the selection
committee and the decision is not arbitrary. The Court further
held that the writ petitioner of the said case (Writ Petition No.
113/2009) having participated in the subsequent selection
0
without any protest, could not revert back to the earlier selection
process.
13. On 17th September, 2012, after hearing both the
parties, this Court requested the learned Attorney General who E
was appearing on behalf of the Company to give us the reasons
in detail for cancellation of the first and second rounds of the
selection process held by the authorities concerned. The
learned Attorney General after meeting with the representative
of the Company in his office on 22nd September, 2012 and
F
after going through the relevant papers of interviews submitted
a report; the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
. "In respect of the first round of the selection process,
in which interviews were conducted on 9th land 10th
December, 2005, the Screening Committee had released G
the results on 4.4.2006 subsequent to which complaints
received from Shri Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani on
10.04.2006 and from Shri K. Srinadha Rao on 19.4.2006.
The General Manager, Maharashtra State Office of the
Indian Oil Corporation appointed an inquiry committee to H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.K.

A investigate the complaints. Based on the Inquiry Report,
which was submitted on October 7, 2006, the Maharashtra
State Office prepared a Note dated 17.10.2006 which was
finally approved and endorsed on November 7, 2006 by
which a decision was taken in accordance with existing
B guidelines to re-interview eligible candidates as the merit
panel had been vitiated due to errors in evaluating financial
parameters of the candidates in the merit panel which
resulted in a change in the merit panel. A typed copy of
the Note dated 17.10.2006 has been annexed by the
petitioner in the Application to bring on record facts,
c subsequent events and documents, marked as Annexure
P-5 thereto.
4. In respect of the second round of the selection
process, in which interviews were conducted on
o December 22-24, 2008, two complaints were
received from Shri Pritesh Chhajed on 26.12.2008
and from Shri K.Srinadha Rao on 16.12.2008 with
a reminder on 10.1.2009. An inquiry report was
prepared by investigating officer on 24.3.2009
which was finalized by the Maharashtra State Office
E
vide Note dated 13.4.2009. In relation to the
complain of Shri Pritesh Chhajed, it was found that
after giving benefit to the complainant, the following
position emerged:
F "a) Even if it is considered giving benefits to the
complainant candidates Sri Pritesh J. Chajjed as
eligible based on enquiry findings, the number one
empanelled candidate remains unchanged as 1st
in the Merit Panel, however, the panel will get
G changed by adding.other qualified candidates in
2nd rank at least.
b) The other two complainant candidates would be
ranked hypothetically as below"

H
Name of Marks by the Marks by the % marks Empanelment % marks Empanelment
the candidate L 1 committee L2 committee allotted by by interview evaluated if after deviations
interview committee deviations taken into
committee taken into consideration
(out of total consideration (analysis)
65 marks)
Shri Ashok 41.78 5.2 72.38% 1 NA
Gwalani
Shri Pritish 35.67 7.4 Ineligible Ineligible 66.26%
Chhajed (42.07) (66.26)
Shri K. 31.00 6.9 58.30 Not qualified NA
Shrinadharao
Shri Keshavrao 32.85 5.8 59.46 Not qualified NA
Gopairao Shinde
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A Based on evaluation by L1 (Annexure A) and L2
(Annexure 8) committee the mark sheet as
complied by the interview committee (Annexure C),
the marks awarded to the complainant Sri Pritosh
Chhajjed is computed in the above table, though the
B same was not declared by the committee due to his
ineligibility.)

Considering that the marks allotted by L1 (35.67)
and L2 (7.4) to Sri Pritish Chajjed is added, he gets
66.26% marks (i.e. 43.07 out of 65) and would have
c become 2nd in the merit panel whereby the original
merit panel dated 23.12.08 undergoes a change
with two candidates in the merit panel instead of
one empanelled candidate and thus the selection
gets vitiated. Hence, as per policy in vogue, since
D the above referred selection gets vitiated and also
there are other eligible candidates available, the
location should be reinterviewed with all the eligible
candidates.

E c) From the records, it is also observed that the
location Mahape had been originally advertised on
11.6.2005 against which based on interview, the
first merit panel was declared on 4.4.4006,
thereafter there were complaints and after
F investigation as per grievance redressal procedure
and the decision by the competent authority, re-
interview of all the eligible candidates was
conducted on 22.12.08 to 24.12.2008 and
accordingly the above referred merit panel dated
24.12.2008 was declared by the interview
G
committee. The selection process for this location
remained inconclusive for the last four years and is
yet to be concluded. Further it is also observed that
this will be a case of 2nd re-interview with all the
eligible candidates for the same location. In all
H likelihood, based on the above investigation details
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.C.L. TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1135
SHANKARLAL GWALANI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKOPADHAYA, J.]

and analysis, there may not be any further change A
in the merit panel in respect of the first empanelled
candidate. Additionally, there may be other
candidates who may come in the panel in the 2nd
and 3rd position. Though as per policy in vogue re-
interviews recommended." B
5. In view of this, the following recommendations were
put up for final verdict by the competent authority in
the matter:-

" 1. Since the above referred selection process on c
investigation gets vitiated and also there are other
eligible candidates available, the location should be
re-interviewed with all the eligible candidates as per
selection guidelines in vogue.
D
2. However, the competent authority, i.e. State
Head, MSO while giving the final order in the above
investigation (vide report dated 6.2.2009 and
24.3.2009 by Sri R. Ganeshan as placed below),
may also like to take a view on the facts given in
E
para (c) above, whether to continue with the existing
merit panel dated 24.12.08 with the lone candidate
whose position is not disturbed as per above
analysis remaining as 1st empanelled candidate or
to go for re-interview as per extant guidelines.
F
3. Action is recommended in view of the lapses by
the DO Coordinating officer and interview
committee (L2) for not accepting the duplicate of
original marksheet as detailed above in the IO's
report in tabulation. G

6. These recommendations were studied/reviewed by
the new Retail team at the MSO and comments
were prepared on 29.07.2009, which were
approved on 3.08.2009:
H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 9 S.C.R.

A 1. Since vitiation in the selection process has
been established, as recommended, it is
agreed/recommended that the location
should be re-interviewed as per the extant
policy guidelines.
B
2. In view of Sr. No.1 above, in which vitiation
in the selection process has been
established and re-interview recommended,
in order to have transparency in selection it
is recommen.ded that re-interview be done
c with all the eligible candidates as per the
extant policy guidelines.

3. Chief Manager (RS), MSO has proposed
action against the DO Co-ordinating and the
D L2 Committee. Our comments are as under:

In this case the candidate had brought the
Duplicate copy of the original, which in its strictest
sense is not the original. Logically duplicate copy
of the documents should have been considered as
E
original for the purpose verification. This could/
should have been got confirmed by the coordinating
officer and implemented.

However it appears that the DO coordinating
F officer/l2Committee has strictly gone by the policy
guidelines in this regard to verify the attested copy
of the document submitted with the application,
from the Original to be brought by the candidate at
the time of interview. Therefore technically the DO
G coordinating Officer/L2 Committee has strictly
followed the guidelines.

ED MSO has detailed his views & finally opined as
follows in:
H "In order to avoid any further complication and to
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.C.L. TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1137
SHANKARLAL GWALANI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKOPADHAYA, J.)

give fair chance to everyone, in my opinion this A
selection process should be cancelled and the
location should be Re-advertised. Since there is no
specific policy in this regard it is suggested that HO
opinion may be sought."
B
14. From the pleading of the parties as noticed above and
the record, the following facts emerges:-

(a) The proclamation was made on 11.6.2005 i.e. more
than seven years ago but till date no person has been
granted the dealership in question. c
(b) The first interview was conducted on 9th-10th
December, 2005 in which one Mr. Nilesh L. Kudalkar was
placed at the top of the merit panel while the respondent
was placed second and one Mr. K. Srinadha Rao was D
third. When complaints were made against the selection
as well as an allegation of irregularity in the process, after
investigation, the Company found that the respondent and
Mr. Srinadha Rao had not been marked correctly and both
failed to provide the attested documents as had been E
specifically required under the advertisement and therefore
the first selection was cancelled.

(c) The second re-interview was called for and conducted
on 22nd and 24th December, 2008. In the said re-
interview the respondent was the only eligible candidate F
in the merit panel. On the basis of the complaints made
by other persons a one man Inquiry Commission was
appointed. On the basis of the report of the Investigating
Officer dated 6.2.2009 and 24.3.2009, it was found that
there were lapses by the DO Coordinating Officer and the G
interview committee (l2), in not accepting the duplicate of
the original mark-sheet of a candidate as detailed in the
Inquiry Officer report in tabulation.

(d) The record further shows that the respondent submitted
H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A a representation before the Chairman of the Company on
24.8.2009 with the reminder filed on different dates
including the one dated 23.1.2010. The Senior Divisional
Retail Sales Manager by communication dated 3.06.2010
informed the respondent that "on perusing the application
B and the accompanying documents it is observed that
Relationship Affidavit not as .per format. We regret that
in view of the same your application is found ineligible."

In the aforesaid background, the DGM (RC) by its note
dated 13.8.2009 rejected the opinion submitted by the
c Office for re-interview.

15. It is not clear as to how the assessment was made by
the authorities as apparent from the investigation report
(Annexure-R6). The Investigating Officer in the summary of
D investigation submitted his conclusion, the relevant potion of
which reads as follows:

"Summary of Investigation:

Based on documents provided/handed over by DO, as
E also application the policy guidelines R0/6002 dt.
7.4.2005 & 4.4.2006 the following is the conclusion:

A) L-1 Committee has not strictly followed the guidelines
regarding signing of all documents for assessment.
F However, irrespective of this deviation, L-1 Committee has
considered all documents for assessment.

B) In case of 'Liquid Cash in the form of Bank Fixed
Deposit etc. and 'Fixed and Movable Assets" as detailed
in my report, for financial capability, the L-1 Committee,
G
Screening Committee has given weight-age to documents
of family members/ relatives even though 'No Consent'
affidavit/letter is available. Therefore, in my final
assessment, in line with the policy 'No weight-age has
been given to documents without consent. Therefore final
H
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.CL TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1139
SHANKARLAL GWALANI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKOPADHAYA, J.]

marks have undergone change. Hence in line with the A
above the final result is as under:

As per Interview Committee (in line with merit):

Sr.No. Name of candidate Total marks B
1 Shri Nilesh Laxmikant Kudalkar 56.50
2 Dr Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani 55.33
3 Shri K. Srinadharao 54.33

As per Screening Committee (in line with merit): C

Sr.No. Name of candidate Total marks
1 Shri Nilesh Laxmikant Kudalkar 59.0
2 Shri K. Srinadharao 57.0
3 Dr Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani 52.0 D

As per Investigation (in line with merit):

Sr.No. Name of candidate Total marks
1 Dr Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani 56.78 E
2 Shri K. Srinadharao 53.63
3 Shri Nilesh Laxmikant Kudalkar 48.52

From the aforesaid report, it is clear that the Interview
Committee, Screening Committee and the Investigation F
Officer assessed the three candidates in three different
groups due to which the position of the candidates
changed in the merit list prepared by the Interview
Committee, Screening Committee and the investigation
Officer. G

16. In the present case, the High Court has not noticed and
discussed the aforesaid facts and without discussing the further
developments as taken place after 24.12.2008, directed the
appellants to issue the Letter of Intent in favour of the
H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A respondent. Though the High Court noticed the stand taken by
the appellants that the 'relationship affidavit' submitted by the
respondent was not as per format, it failed to discuss the effect
of such an incomplete affidavit in the matter of selection.

17. Generally, if an irregularity is detected in the matter of
8 selection or preparation of a panel it is desirable to have a fresh
selection instead of re-arranging the panel which is found to be
vitiated. The Authority empowered to appoint, is the competent
authority to decide as to whether the panel should be discarded
and there should be a fresh selection in view of the facts
C narrated above. In such circumstances, the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to not have
interfered with the decision of the competent authority in
canceling the selection.

o 18. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no other option
but to set aside the order of the High Court. Accordingly, the
order and judgment dated 29.9.2010 passed by the High Court
of Bombay is set aside with a liberty to the Competent
Authority to re-advertise the petrol/diesel retail outlets in
E question and to make a fresh selection in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation and
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.