(1) THE petitioner has filed this petition with regard to selection and placement of respondent No. 4 at serial No. 1 for the purpose of award of distribution of Indane Gas. THE petitioner further prays a relief that the respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to place the petitioner at Serial No. 1 in the list.

(2) THE respondents No. 1 to 3 issued a notice inviting applications for the purpose of L.P.G. distributorship for Indane Gas. THE dispute in the present petition is with regard to allotment of distributorship for Indane Gas for Gwalior- D District Gwalior covering the town area of Nai Sadak, Danaoli, Sarafa, Daulatganj, Hanuman Chouraha, Jiwajiganj etc. THE petitioner also applied for the distributorship along with 18 other persons. All the persons called for interview on 22-6-2004 before a selection committee consisting three senior grade officers of the Corporation. After considering the various criteria, the committee prepared a list of three persons on meritwise consisting Mr. Purushottam Das Gupta, Shri Suresh Kumar Chaturvedi and Smt. Madhu Agrawal. THE petitioner submitted a complaint on 10-7-2004 about the selection and after considering the detailed facts, that complaint has been rejected. THEreafter the respondent No. 4 was found eligible for the purpose of allotment of Indane Gas distributorship at Gwaior-D under open category and, consequently, a letter of intent was issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 and thereafter the respondent No. 4 was awarded the dealership and he has been continuing the distributorship of Indane Gas at Gwalior-D, District Gwalior. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the selection of the respondent No. 4 for distributorship of Indane Gas is arbitrary and illegal and against the criteria fixed by the Corporation. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 4 has wrongly awarded marks contrary to the Criteria by the selection committee, hence, he has been given undue favour by the selection committee. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments :-

i) 7 993 JLJ 589, Daulat Singh and others vs. Union of India and others; ii) 2000 (9) SCC 270, Divisional Manager, APSRTC vs. Kondi K. Rambabu and others; iii) 2001(4) MPLJ 419 = 2001(1) M.P.J.R. 71, Gyan Chand Jain vs. Collector, District Jabalpur and another; and iv) 2002 (4) SCC 16, Bibhudatta Mohanty vs. Union of India and others.

(3) CONTRARY to this, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 have submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the allotment of dealership in favour of the respondent No. 4, hence, the petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submitted that the selection committee has considered the merits in detail and has rightly placed the respondent No. 4 at Serial No. 1 in the selection list, and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could only consider the selection process and there is no illegality in selection process, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of their contentions, learned counsels relied on the following judgments :-

i) 2001 (2) MPLJ 205, Dilip Kumar Sharma vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others; ii) 2003 (2) SCC 107, Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others; iii) 2003 10 SCC 681, K. Vinod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy and others; iv) 2007 (1) MPJR 202, Prasana Kumar Vashistha vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.; and v) 2009 (1) SCC 297, Virender Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others;.

(4) WITH regard to preliminary objection taken by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 about the maintainability of the petition, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner in the writ petition has not challenged the allotment of dealership in favour of the respondent No. 4, neither he challenged the issuance of letter of intent. The petiti