(1) THIS appeal is directed under section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 20th October, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1500/2004. [reported in 2011(1) MPLJ 191]. The writ petition was dismissed by a detailed order and mainly on the ground that the letter of intent issued in favour of respondents was not assailed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge while deciding this issue has relied on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Virendra Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others, (2009) 1 SCC 297, paragraph 20 of the judgment.

(2) IN this appeal, the appellant has filed two applications. (1) I.A.No. 93/10, an application seeking leave to produce additional documents on record. Along with this application, appellant has produced two documents, a Letter dated 28-12-2009 issued by the INdian Oil Corporation Limited sending an information to the appellant under Right to INformation Act, 2005 along with the copy of letter of allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 dated 10th November, 2004. (2) Another application is I.A.No. 1064/10 by which appellant has sought permission of this Court to amend the Memo of writ petition. By the aforesaid application, the appellant wants to insert various grounds in the Memo of writ petition by assailing letter of intent (hereinafter referred as 'LOI for short) dated 14-7-2004 (Annexure R/4) filed along with the return before the writ Court. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case in proper perspective. The subject-matter for challenge in the writ petition was a final decision by the respondents in which the respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list. That decision of Selection Board was challenged in the matter and after the aforesaid decision is set aside by this Court, naturally, the consequential order i.e. the letter of intent shall also go.

(3) HE has also argued on merits of the case and submitted that the allocation of marks to respondent No. 4 in respect of ownership of the land were wrongly awarded. Respondent No. 4 was awarded 20 marks, while the petitioner was awarded 10 marks. HE has referred the document Annexure X/1 in support of his contention by which M/s Himanshu Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. had issued a certificate in respect of extracts of the Minutes of the Company to show that in fact respondent No. 4 was not owner of the land but only filed this letter of Company showing that the Company had decided to give this land on lease. In fact, no document showing any lease or ownership in the land was produced. HE has placed reliance on the Apex Court's Judgment in the matter of Poonam Kumar vs. Jai Prakash Pandey and others, (2008) 5 SCC 325 in support of his contention. HE has also relied on certain paragraphs of the judgment which is referred by the learned Single Judge in the order in the case of Virendra Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others, (2009) 1 SCC 297 in support of his contention that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case. Apart from this, it was submitted by Shri Sharma that the respondents have not opposed the petition on the ground that letter of intent was not challenged before the Writ Court but the Writ Court on wrong premises has decided the cases on the aforesaid grounds.

(4) SHRI R. D. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 supported the order. It was submitted by him that the scope of interference in writ appeal is very limited . In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others, 1996 MPLJ 1074 and Mani vs. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, 1999(2) MPLJ 81 = 2000(4) M.P.H.T 105. So far as the contention of the appellant in respect of ownership of