Judicial review is justified when administrative decisions lack transparency and fairness in adherence to established procedural guidelines.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and assailing the order dated 2.7.2012 of rejecting the candidature and the order dated 8.11.2012 rejecting the representation of petitioner, after the direction of this Court dated 7.8.2012 in WP No. 12692/2012, petitioner has filed WP No. 21326/2012. The another Writ Petition No. 15607/2013 is filed assailing the grant of LPG Distributorship of village Sarai, district Singrauli in favour of respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.5.2013 Annexure P / 6.

2. The Facts unfolded to file the present two writ petitions are the respondent Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to in short as I.O.C.) issued an advertisement on 1.11.2011 for grant of outlet retail LPG dealership under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (in short 'RGGLV') with respect to village Sarai, Tehsil Deosar, District Singrauli. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 both applied for the said grant and found eligible, however, lots of the candidates were drawn. The petitioner stood first, however, on 17.1.2012, intimation was sent by the I.O.C.. As per procedure field verification was made by the officers of the IOC on 17.3.2012. After field verification in the report it was mentioned that the land for godown offered by the petitioner is not connected with the approach road and the gift deed for the approach road was registered on 29.2.2012 after the date of submitting the application form. Thus, vide order dated 2.7.2012 Annexure P / 3 the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Challenging the said order Writ Petition No. 12692/2012 was filed, which was disposed on 7.8.2012 directing the IOC to consider the representation afresh in terms of the procedure prescribed for selection. While considering the representation, I.O.C. reiterating the same reason, maintained the order of rejection of the candidature and rejected the same. Being aggrieved, WP No. 21326/2012 has been filed. On rejection of the representation, the respondent IOC issued the letter of intent in favour of respondent No.2 on 13.5.2013, however, challenging the grant petitioner has preferred WP No. 15607/2013 seeking quashment of the letter of intent.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the land offered by respondent No.2 to I.O.C. is the disputed land, and do not confer clear title on him, which would reflect from the search and title report dated 2.2.2013 called by the IOC through their advocate. In the report exclusive possession of respondent No.2 was also not found. The I.O.C. prior to receiving the clarification regarding possession from the Patwari issued the letter of intent on 13.5.2013 arbitrarily with malafide intention. It is further contended that immediate after issuing the letter of intent the land belong to respondent No.2 offered to I.O.C. has been sold by him vide sale deed dated 22.7.2013. However, the order of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and grant made in his favour is in complete defiance to the procedure prescribed, without application of mind and arbitrary. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of K. Vi nod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy and others - 2003 (10) SCC 681 to contend that the judicial review is open where the decision making process is affected by the bias of arbitrariness and contrary to the policy. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj and others vs. Union of India and another - 2003 (2) SCC 673 to contend that in such mat