The court can interfere with the decision of the Oil Selection Board in granting a retail outlet dealership if the decision is arbitrary, irrational or unfair.

( 1 ) IN this application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be awarded retail out let dealership at Santipur adjacent to the National Highway 34 in the District of Nadia.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is as follows: pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1 on 26-12-1985 inviting application from the intending persons for being appointed as dealer under 'c' Category at Santipur in the District of Nadia, the petitioner along with others submitted an application for the dealership. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Oil Selection Board for interview by the respondent No. 1 in terms of letters dated 13/04/1988 and 1/05/1988 which he complied with. However, the name of the petitioner was not empanelled by the Board of the said dealership. The petitioner filed a representation before the Chairman of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner has contended that initially his name was empanelled but for some reasons the same had been struck off. The petitioner has further contended that on the advice of the Sales Officer of respondents No. 1 he had purchased 50 decimals of land adjacent to the National Highway No. 34. He also contended that at the interview the members of the Oil Selection Board informed him that he would be given the said dealership. The petitioner has further contended that the respondents decided to issue dealership in the name of some person who was not the resident of Santipur in the District of Nadia.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 awarded the dealership in question to Gobinda Gopal Pal. An application for addition of said Gobinda Gopal Pal was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by an order dated 7-2-1988. The petitioner in the aforementioned supplementary affidavit, therefore, inter alia, questioned the legality/ validity of the dealership granted to the aforementioned Gobinda Gopal Pal.

( 4 ) THE respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition categorically stated that the Oil Selection Board had considered the cases of all applicants in accordance with law and having found that Sri Gobinda Gopal Pal was the suitable candidate thought it fit to award the said dealership to him. According to the respondents Gobinda Gopal Pal was awarded the dealership by the Oil Selection Board upon scrutinising all the documents in respect whereof it was the final authority.

( 5 ) MR. Dipak Kundu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, drew my attention to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of showing that it would appear therefrom that he had been awarded on the following marks :- personality, business ability, salesmanship (Max. 30)finance and Facilities (Max. 20)full time working dealer (Max. 30)genl. assessment and extra curricular activities (Max. 20) total Chairman 10 16 7 8 31 member 10 16 7 8 31 total marks therefore obtained by the petitioner is as under : 31-31 = 62-2 = 31 marks. [ or 31 + 31 = 62 / 2 = 31 marks]@@@

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the addition of marks awarded to the petitioner under different heads would show that the petitioner should have awarded 41 marks in place of 31 marks and as the same was evidently a mistake. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the case of the petitioner appears to have been not considered in its proper perspective.

( 7 ) MR. Kundu appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondents themselves it would appear that marks have been allotted with regard to the full time working dealership and general assessment and extra curricular activities which are wholly irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of grant of dealership. It was pointed out that in the advertisement issued b