Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s direction to allot an Indian Oil retail dealership to the second-ranked applicant. The High Court had resolved disputed land-location facts contrary to revenue reports and assumed, without adequate reasoning, that revised marks would place him first. Judicial review did not authorise a fresh comparative assessment of candidates. The High Court orders were set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could resolve disputed land-location facts and substitute its assessment for the dealership-selection authority.
- Whether an assumed marking error justified a direct allotment to the second-ranked candidate.
Held
- The High Court wrongly adjudicated the disputed location of the applicant’s land on affidavits and brushed aside the relevant revenue reports. The Supreme Court’s discussion did not itself constitute a finding that his land lay within Giriyama. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 21)
- Even assuming an erroneous zero mark, there was no reasoned basis to conclude that revised marks would necessarily place the writ petitioner first. Comparative suitability was for the competent selection authority. (¶¶ 15, 20, 21)
- Judicial review ordinarily does not permit appellate reappreciation of administrative factual findings. Where a patent error warrants intervention, the usual course is to allow the authority to rectify it; direct judicial correction is confined to rare cases involving an obvious error. (¶¶ 16, 19)
- The Division Bench also proceeded on an erroneous premise about the selected applicant’s land, contrary even to the writ petitioner’s case. Both the appellate and Single Bench orders could not stand. (¶¶ 18, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals allowed. High Court appellate and Single Bench orders set aside; writ petition dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.