RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the selection process for allotment of petrol pump on the ground that the respondent has not properly marked the petitioner under various categories and given much emphasis that although the petitioner was eligible to secure 20 out of 20 marks for the ready availability of finance but instead of 20, 18 marks were awarded. Again, for the purpose of project report, instead of 3, only 2 marks were awarded and same is the position with the overall assessment and instead of 1. 7, 1. 5 marks were allotted and same is with the experience and only 1 mark was awarded instead of 4. Under the category of business ability/acumen the petitioner deserves to be awarded 4 marks whereas 2. 7 marks were awarded and if the marks would have been correctly awarded for which the petitioner is eligible the petitioner would stand at No. 1 and able to get the allotment of petrol pump in her favour.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents which were essentially required were submitted before the respondents but the same were not properly considered and have arbitrarily awarded wrong marking under various heads and was deprived from getting allotment of petrol pump in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred norms for evaluating the candidates more particularly 16. 1 by which marks are allocated for assessment of overall suitability. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no grievance with regard to discretionary marks, but the marks under the other category should be awarded correctly as the petitioner fulfill the requirement and there is no option with the respondent to deduct the marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has not adopted fair practice while awarding marks under various categories. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in the case SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2004 7 SCC 166 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that power vested must be exercised bona fide and fairly.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is of such nature where this court should have exercised power of judicial review of the decision taken by the respondents as Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of MC Mehta vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2004 (6) Supreme Court Cases 588 held that the judicial review is permissible if the impugned action is against law and in violation of prescribed procedure or unreasonable or arbitrary or malafide. Therefore, while exercising power under Article 226 this court in view of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court has got power of judicial review. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. submits that the petitioner has got no case as the marks awarded by the respondents are absolutely in accordance with the policy. Mr. Kasliwal further submits that not only the petitioner has financial capability but also the petitioner has submitted details of the liquid cash in form of fixed deposits of Rs. 10 to 15 lacs and such 12 marks are to be allocated to the petitioner but 12 marks are awarded on the basis of leading question and also verifying documents submitted. ;