The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere errors or inadvertent misdescriptions do not amount to fraud or misrepresentation. The court also emphasized the limited role of the court in judicial review to examine the decision-making process for legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

We have heard Counsel for the Appellant, the Respondent Corporation and for private Respondent no. 7.

2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 1.10.2012 allowing CWJC No. 2042 of 2011 preferred by respondent no. 7, the second empanelled candidate, questioning the selection and grant of retail outlet dealership to the Appellant. The learned Single Judge opined that the Appellant had presented an interpolated document with regard to lands offered for dealership amounting to a fraud on the Corporation. The Corporation has been directed to prepare a statement of facts and forward it to the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, for necessary action. Commissioning of the dealership has been directed to be kept in abeyance with liberty to advertise afresh.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the registered Lease Deed obtained by him from the land owner for establishing the retail outlet contained an inadvertent omission when it mentioned the plot no. as 757 instead of 787. The deed of correction to read as Plot no. 787 was executed on 14.8.2012. The landlord of Plot 787 had not denied having entered into a registered Lease agreement with the Appellant. No third person had claimed that his lands had wrongly and unauthorisedly been offered by the Appellant without his consent and selection obtained on that basis. The question of any deliberate fraudulent misrepresentation to wrongly obtain the dealership does not arise. Reliance was placed on AIR 1963 SC 1879 (Sheo Dhyan Singh vs Mst. Sanichara Keur) to submit that the error with regard to the plot number was inconsequential so long as the parties were under no misunderstanding and the boundaries of the Leased lands as mentioned in the Lease Deed were correct.

4. The Appellant, along with his application had enclosed a copy of the Lease agreement which disclosed the area of the lands as 120 feet X 110 feet. The site map submitted was not to scale. The Appellant had not made any misrepresentation or practiced fraud with regard to the size of the plot and wrongly obtained any benefit. The site map and the Lease Deed had to be and were considered together by the Corporation. The Appellant did not and could not have offered any land in excess of the subject matter of the Lease. Clause 1 (b) (iii) of the advertisement reserved the right to consider even if there was variation in land measurements provided it met the requirements for grant of NOC under the Petroleum Rules, Indian Road Congress Norms and the Explosives Act. The Revised map of the lands prepared by the Revenue authorities showed the lands to be 35 meters X 35/30 Meters. Reliance was placed on AIR 1960 Allahabad 247 (Rama Shankar Misra vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur) to contend that on the facts there had been no misrepresentation to obtain an advantage wrongly by intentional concealment of any fact. The complaint of respondent no. 7 had been also examined by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and found without substance.

5. Respondent no. 7 does not dispute that the Appellant otherwise fulfills conditions of eligibility and is the first empanelled candidate. The challenge by Respondent no. 7 was not bonafide but motivated by desire to unseat the Appellant one way or the other as to derive a benefit as the second empanelled candidate.

6. Selection of a candidate for grant of dealership is an administrative matter and the location of an outlet a commercial decision. The Court, in judicial review shall primarily examine the decision making process in both situations. The Corporation and the Selection Committee were fully aware of the land measurement and location offered by the Appellant. They have not been misled in any manner and did not consider the candidature on any assumption of facts different from what it actually was. No mala fides has been alleged against the Selection Committee much less any irregularity in the process of selection. T