IMPORTANT POINT
Over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and does not extend to merits of decision taken.

Headnote:Administrative Law-Appointment of LPG distributors at several location-Selection by Dealer Selection Board on basis of interview-Appellant was recommended for appointment-High Court set aside the selection in writ petition holding that there was no transparency in awarding marks and no speaking order to show on what basis said marks were awarded-Appeal-In absence of a particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for Board to follow, no fault could be found with manner in which proceedings were conducted by Board-Requirement of providing particulars of land in application was only directory-Over proceedings and decision in administrative matters, scope of judicial review was confined to decision making process and did not extend to merits of decision making-Impugned judgment of High Court was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board must satisfy the requirements of a bona fide administrative decision arrived at in a fair manner. There are no mala fides alleged against the Dealer Selection Board or the President or any Member thereof. There is no specific plea raised impugning the manner of marking. It appears that all the three members of the Board including the President conducted the proceedings, and each one of them gave marks expressing his own assessment of the merits of the applicants. The marks given by the three were then totalled and arranged in the order of merit. The appellant herein topped the list. In the absence of a particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for the Board to follow, no fault can be found with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Board. The Board is entrusted with the task of finding out the best suitable candidate and, so long as the power is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt its own procedure subject to satisfying the test of reasonableness and fairness. There is no averment that the procedure adopted by the Board was arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. (Para 7)
       Further held : The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of the BPCL to issue letter of allotment to the appellant herein. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted.

2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise, issued an advertisement on 16.8.2000 inviting applications for appointment as LPG distributors for Bharat Gas at several locations mentioned in their advertisement, one of them being Palladam. One of the conditions of eligibility, as contained in the advertisement, was:-

"(g) The applicants should furnish, along with the application, details of land for godown facilities which he/she may make available for the Distributorship. Considering the location of the land from the point of view of commercial angle, applicants willing to transfer the land/facilities on ownership/long lease to BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., at the rates acceptable to BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., would be given preference. If an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the land indicated by him/her earlier, within a period of 2 months, the allotment of the BHARAT GAS Distributorship made to him/her would be cancelled."

The controversy in the present case centers around the abovesaid eligibility requirement and it is, therefore, not necessary to notice other eligibility requirements.

3. The appellant herein, who was the respondent No. 5 in the High Court, was one of the applicants who made an application seeking such appointment. The Dealer Selection Board scrutinized all the applications and also invited the applicants for interview. As noted by the High Court in its impugned judgment the Dealer Selection Board consisting of the Chairman and two Members gave the marks as under:-

Respondent No. 3 - 50+90+72 = 212

Respondent No. 4 - 46+76+68 = 190

Respondent No. 5 - 93+80+80 = 253

(appellant in this Court)

The appellant herein was recommended for appointment.

4. One of the aspirants, the respondent No.1 before us, filed a writ petition laying challenge to the selection made as above. A learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the selection made by the Board on the ground that there was a failure on the part of the appellant herein to give particulars of the land to be given for the dealership and, therefore, he could not have been selected. The learned single Judge also called for the record of the proceedings held by the Board, and after scrutinizing the same observed that there was no transparency in awarding marks inasmuch as excepting the act of awarding the marks, there was no other decision or finding with respect to the basis for awarding of such marks. At one place, during the course of his judgment, the learned single Judge of the High Court observed that there was no speaking order to show on what basis the said marks were awarded.

5. The appellant preferred an intra-court appeal which has been dismissed by a Division Bench. The aggrieved appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the two judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

7. The proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board must satisfy the requirements of a bona fide administrative decision arrived at in a fair manner. There are no mala fides alleged against the Dealer Selection Board or the President or any Member thereof. There is no specific plea raised impugning the manner of marking. It appears that all the three members of the Board including the President conducted the proceedings, and each one of them gave marks expressing his own assessment of the merits of the applicants. The marks given by the three were then totalled and arranged in the order of merit. The appellant herein topped the list. In the absence of a particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for the Board to follow, no fault can be found with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Board. The Board is entrusted with the task of finding out the best suitable candidate and, so long as the power is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 825

IMPORTANT POINT Over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and does not extend to merits of decision taken.

IMPORTANT POINT
Over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and does not extend to merits of decision taken.