- (1.) The petitioner, who was applicant for allotment of retail outlet, has challenged the communication dated 2.62010 (Annexure P-17) and the result of evaluation made on 16.122009 (Annexure P-6). Vide Annexure P-17, the petitioner was informed that the land offered by him was located in Village Ding whereas the advertisement was for location in Village Ding Mandi. As per the investigation report, it was advised that in the revenue records there was no location by the name of 'Ding Mandi' but name of Village Ding is there, which falls in the revenue estate of District Sirsa. Accordingly, no marks were awarded to him for location. On this basis, ail the candidates had been awarded 0 marks in the criteria of capacity to provide, infrastructure. None of the applicants, thus, could Obtain the minimum qualifying marks. On this basis, the respondents have taken a decision to re-advertise the location, for which the petitioner has not even made any application.
(2.) Despite this position, the petitioner insisted on making submissions and accordingly the counsel have been heard.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the technical team, which had inspected the site offered by him had given him 34 marks out of 35. The site offered by respondent No. 5 was outrightly rejected as it did not fall in the area as per the advertisement It is alleged mat respondent No. 5 is a real brother-in-law of respondent No. 4, who is Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. It is his influence, which, as per the petitioner led to this situation. The petitioner, though eligible, was made ineligible by giving him 0 marks under the heading of land and infrastructure. He accordingly pleads that whole action of the respondents was actuated with malice and so should be set-aside.;