Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjiv Singh for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Sri Bal Krishna Pandey for the respondent no.4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.4.2014 whereby re-evaluation of the selections for a retail outlet petroleum dealership has been challenged. The ground of challenge raised is with regard to the acceptance of the report of the valuer which, according to the petitioner in the present case, was not fulfilled by the respondent and, therefore, the question of re-evaluation did not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular dated 1.11.2013 would apply prospectively and would not be applicable in the present case whereby selections had been finalized on 12.6.2013. The contention of Sri Chaudhay is that once the selection process was over, the circular dated 1.11.2013 cannot be pressed into service. Sri Sanjiv Singh, on the other hand, contends that the same would apply in all pending cases and in the instant case also since the letter of intent had not been issued to any party and the selection process had not yet concluded, the argument of the petitioner's counsel is not tenable. The circular dated 1.11.2013 is extracted hereinunder :-
RETAIL SALES DEPARTMENT, HO No.6069 (DSG)l-46/13 1st November, 2013 Sub: Clarification on 'Govt. Approved Valuer' State Retail Heads Sub: Clarification on 'Govt. Approved Valuer' In the selection process of RO Dealerships, for the parameter of 'Fixed & Moveable Assets' under financial capability, marks are awarded based on the value assessed by a Govt. Approved Valuer as stipulated in the Selection Brochure. It has been observed that there is scope for clarity as to which Valuer qualifies as 'Govt. Approved Valuer'. It is clarified that for the purpose of evaluation, valuation report submitted by a valuer will be considered provided the valuer is registered/empanelled by any one of the following Government Agencies :
1. Central Govt. Departments and Bodies like Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)/Department of Income Tax, CPWD & other Govt. authorities.
2. Public Sector Banks.
3. Public Sector Undertakings.
4. State Govt. Departments and Bodies like PWD, PHED, Irrigation Departments.
5. Local Self Govt. bodies (like Development Authorities, Municipal Corporation etc.) Type of category under which valuer is covered should be recorded/mentioned in valuation report. Evaluation will be done accordingly. The above guidelines will be applicable for all pending cases of selection (if any).
(Vinay K. Misra) GM (RS) A perusal thereof leaves no room for doubt that the guidelines as clarified would also be applicable for all pending cases of selection (if any). In the instant case since no letter of intent had been issued, the selection process has not yet concluded and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the said clarification circular dated 1.11.2013 would be applicable in the present case as well. The authority, therefore, has not committed any error for sending the matter for re-evaluation. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As and when the re-evaluation is carried out, it shall be open to any aggrieved party to question the selections afresh in accordance with rules. Order Date :- 10.7.2014 Anand Sri./-