Rijeesh T.P. v Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 37191 of 2009 (T) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **RIJEESH T.P., S/O.VELAYUDHAN T.P. AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT THUPPAI PARAMBIL HOUSE, OZHUR POST, TANALUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED** - **A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051, HAVING ITS REGIONAL KERALA STATE OFFICE AT PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036.** **2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION** - **OF LPG DISTRIBUTORS, C/O. THE INDIAN OIL, CORPORATION LIMITED, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036.** **3. PRABITHA T.M., D/O. THELATH MADAVANGATTIL PRABHAKARAN, THELATH MADAVANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.TANUR, CHIRAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES, NEW DELHI.** - **R1 & R2 BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR** - **R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR** **SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2017 THE COURT ON 13-01-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 37191 of 2009 (T) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH 2 OTHER OIL COMPANIES IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD.29.12.2007. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DISTRIBUTORSHIP SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.30.1.2008. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE IST OF EMPANELLED CANDIDATES FOR INDANE DISTRIBUTORSHIP DTD.8.9.2009 PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NORMS FOR SELECTION OF INDANE DISTRIBUTORS, JUNE, 2009. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED NO.222/08/I DTD.18.1.2008 OF TANUR SRO EXECUTED BY SHRI.P.A.SAINUDDIN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.15.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE AVERMENTS. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.17.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (LPG) OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.23.9.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.20.10.2009 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD.5.9.1991 OF THANUR SRO. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD.13.1.2001 OF THANUR SRO. EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.16.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **Msv/** **-2-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 37191 of 2009 (T) ---------------------------** **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/REQUEST DTD.2.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.8.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF INTEND DTD.8.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FATHER'S BROTHER DTD.21.1.2008.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of January, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P7, P12 & P14 and to set aside the proceedings providing 1[st] rank to the 3[rd] respondent, in Ext.P3 list of empanelled candidates in the matter of LPG distributorship of 1[st] respondent Corporation as per Ext.P1 notification issued, and for other related reliefs. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; petitioner has applied for LPG distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of Tanur location of Malappuram District based on the joint notification of Oil Companies in India inviting applications for LPG distributorship in Kerala. Petitioner was ranked second in the list of empanelled candidates for distributorship. According to the petitioner, petitioner is more qualified and suitable than W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 2 the 3[rd] respondent, who is ranked first in the list of empanelled candidates. It is also stated, petitioner is also aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner consequent to the misrepresentation made by the 3[rd] respondent. In response to the said notification, petitioner submitted application for LPG distributorship dated 30.1.2008 in respect of Tanur location under open category after complying with all required formalities, evident from Ext.P2. Based on the said notification and application, an interview was conducted on 7.9.2009 at Kochi as mentioned in Clause 13 of Ext.P1. The overall result was published on 8.9.2009, evident from Ext.P3. Petitioner is ranked second in the list. Third respondent herein is rank No.1 in the list. As per the list, 3[rd] respondent secured 88.33 marks, whereas petitioner got 85.57 marks, i.e., 2.76 marks lesser than the 3[rd] respondent. 3. It is contended that, based on the qualification and facilities possessed by the petitioner and the norms for W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 3 evaluating the candidates, petitioner is entitled to get at least 3 more marks in the evaluation. Moreover, it is stated, 3[rd] respondent has secured higher marks than the petitioner by misrepresentation. Hence the 3[rd] respondent is liable to be disqualified. According to the petitioner, the marks are to be awarded in accordance with the guidelines provided as per Ext.P4, however, the 1[st] respondent has not cared to follow the stipulations contained under Ext.P4 and provided more marks to the 3[rd] respondent. That apart, it is stated, petitioner is entitled to get more marks than what is awarded since he is in possession of a leasehold property in Re-sy. No.54/7 of Tirur Taluk as per a registered deed at the time of application, suitable for construction of a LPG showroom as required under clause 13.2 of Ext.P1 notification. The lease is for a period of 15 years, evident from Ext.P5. However, due to an error in filling the application, petitioner filled up column No.13B1 incorrectly. Clause 13B1 of the application relates to query relating to availability of showroom for LPG distributorship. However, to the query in clause 13B1 of the W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 4 application as to whether the petitioner has a suitable land in the location for construction of showroom in his own name, the petitioner erroneously answered 'no' by striking the column 'yes'. At the same time, he also listed the details of his leasehold property suitable for showroom in clause 13B2 instead of giving details in column 13B1 itself. Petitioner has also produced a notarized affidavit in prescribed form as required in clause 13B1 and further that, the nominal error in filling the application is only a curable defect and there is substantial compliance of all the requirements by the petitioner making him eligible for the additional marks for such facilities. However, the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents refused to consider the availability of the leasehold property covered by Ext.P5. Therefore, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 complaint dated 15.9.2009, which was responded by the Deputy General Manager (LPG) of the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P7 stating that, the marks are awarded based on what is stated in the application form only. It is also stated that, the supporting documents are verified only at the time of field investigation W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 5 of the empanelled candidates and there is no provision for curing defects in the application form at a later stage after submission. 4. In the meantime, on enquiry petitioner came to know that, 3[rd] respondent, the first empanelled candidate, is not eligible for the additional 25 marks for godown and additional 10 marks for showroom as per the list. However, she was awarded full marks for the same. On further enquiry conducted by the petitioner, he came to know that, 3[rd] respondent does not have properties for providing godown or showroom in her own name or on lease. Third respondent only claims to have obtained power of attorney, which will not confer any title in her favour. It is also stated that, only the power of attorney stated to be executed in her favour was also not produced along with the application. In that circumstances, petitioner submitted complaints dated 23.9.2009 and 30.9.2009, evident from Ext.P8. That apart it is contended, 3[rd] respondent relies on two documents in support of her claim in respect of property for providing W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 6 godown and showroom for LPG distributorship. However, both properties are not in her own name. The ownership of the said property are not vested in any person who could be considered within the ambit of the term 'family unit' as defined in Ext.P1 notification. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P10 document, which is a certified copy of the registered document relied on by the 3[rd] respondent to meet the requirements of Ext.P1. Ext.P10 shows that, father of the 3[rd] respondent is not the owner of the said property, but the property belongs to two other persons and father of the 3[rd] respondent, the co-owners of the said property are said to be the paternal uncles of the 3[rd] respondent and such persons by no stretch of imagination will come within the ambit of the term 'family unit.' That apart, it is stated that, evident from Ext.P11, the claim made by the 3[rd] respondent that, the properties suitable for showroom is belonging to her father, Prabhakaran.T.N. is also in the co-ownership of 3[rd] respondent's father and his two brothers. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent has W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 7 misrepresented and submitted the application as per Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, petitioner insisted for cancellation of the ranking. 5. On receipt of the compliant submitted by the petitioner, 1[st] respondent issued a communication dated 7.10.2009, assuring the petitioner that, they will investigate into the matter mentioned in the complaint dated 29.9.2009. However, according to the petitioner, without conducting any proper enquiry, the Deputy General Manager of the 1[st] respondent concluded that, the complaint submitted by the petitioner has no merit, evident from Ext.P12. It is stated in Ext.P12 that, the 3[rd] respondent is unmarried and her father is part of her family. It is also stated that, the power of attorney given in her favour is valid. The claim for more marks made by the petitioner based on Ext.P5 registered lease deed submitted along with Ext.P2 application was also rejected. According to the petitioner, the conclusion arrived at is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, petitioner submitted a further request as per Ext.P13 dated 2.12.2009 before the 1[st] W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 8 respondent, however, the same was also rejected as per Ext.P14 dated 8.12.2009. 6. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the 3[rd] respondent, there is no irregularity or illegality in the selection process and the petitioner cannot challenge the marks awarded in the said process. The allegation raised by the petitioner that, 3[rd] respondent is guilty of misrepresentation and respondents 1 and 2 did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner is denied. According to the 3[rd] respondent, 3[rd] respondent has not committed any misrepresentation. It is stated that, 3[rd] respondent is issued with a Letter of Indent by the 1[st] respondent, evident from Ext.R3(a). Pursuant to Ext.R3(a), 3[rd] respondent applied for necessary approval from the local bodies and statutory authorities and it was at that juncture, petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition. The averment in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that, respondents 1 and 2 refused to consider the availability W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 9 of the leasehold property covered by Ext.P5 is denied. Petitioner was awarded with 7 marks and 3[rd] respondent was awarded with 10 marks in that category. According to the 3[rd] respondent, 3[rd] respondent has produced all the documents along with the application and produced an affidavit of her father's brothers as per the norms, evident from Ext.R3(b). It is stated that, the 3[rd] respondent has not produced any power of attorney executed in her favour, as a matter of fact, 3[rd] respondent's father's brothers have executed power of attorney in favour of their brother i.e., 3[rd] respondent's father, which was furnished along with the application. The property covered by the 3[rd] respondent is the co-ownership property owned by petitioner's father and two brothers. The two brothers of the petitioner's father submitted affidavits in addition to the power of attorney executed by them in favour of 3[rd] respondent's father. The attempt of the petitioner is to create a confusion by distorting the facts. A reading of Ext.P12 would show that, Ext.P8 complaint submitted by the petitioner was enquired into by the officials of the 1[st] W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 10 respondent. Ext.P10 document was executed on 5.9.1991 and the corresponding Malayalam month and date were written in Ext.P9 communication. It is only a mistake in Ext.P9 communication. All other contentions with respect to the evaluation of the formalities provided in Ext.P4 guidelines are denied by the 3[rd] respondent. According to the 3[rd] respondent, 3[rd] respondent has complied with the stipulations contained in Ext.P1 and the marks awarded on the basis of Ext.P4 stipulations are in accordance with law and there is no interference required in the matter of selection made by the 1[st] respondent, there being no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the 1[st] respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned ASGI for 4[th] respondent, learned counsel appearing for 3[rd] respondent and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 8. The predominant contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that, the requirements sought for in W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 11 clause Nos.13 and 14 of Ext.P1 are not satisfied by the 3[rd] respondent, however, 1[st] respondent has provided full marks to the 3[rd] respondent in that regard. Clause 13.1 deals with godown space for the applicants. It also deals with size of the building for the godown and the showrooms and the nature of access road required to the godown space. Clause 13.2 deals with showroom space and other allied stipulations. Clause 13.3 deals with requirements of the applicants to have the requisite vehicles for making door delivery of the cylinders. Clause 14 deals with the availability of the land either in ownership or on leasehold rights, or an agreement for purchase of the property or if it can be arranged, the applicants are entitled to get full marks. It is also stated in clause 14 that, in order to provide marks, the details provided in the application alone will be the criteria. The applicants are not entitled to change the property even at the time of interview. It is also prescribed, if the property is in the ownership of family members, an affidavit shall be furnished by the family members. It is also stipulated that, the W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 12 properties provided by the applicants will be inspected after the selection and if there is any difference in the details of the property provided in the application or if the property shown in the application is not suitable for constructing the godown or the same is not approved by the Chief Controller of Explosives, the Letter of Indent will be cancelled. The said stipulation contained in Ext.P1 notification is on the basis of the stipulation contained under Ext.P4 guidelines issued for selection of Indane distributors June 2007 and clause 9 read thus; “ 9. CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWNS/SHOWROOM ON THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN APPLICATION FORM. The applicants who readily have suitable godown/land for construction of godown for storage of filled LPG cylinders and shop/land for construction of shop for Indane showroom for setting up of Indane distributors or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease or can arrange it are accordingly awarded marks. The details given in the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the application will not be given any W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 13 opportunity to offer any other land subsequently (even at the time of interview). For this purpose, the land owned by the family members (as defined in multiple distributorship norm) would also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to attaching the consent of the concerned family members. After selection of the applicant, physical verification of the godown land/godown as well as the showroom will be undertaken. In the event it is found that there is variance in the details given in the application form and or the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown or the godown is not approved by CCOE the allotment of the distributorship will stand automatically cancelled. Or if an applicant, after selection on the above basis, is unable to make godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of Explosives on the land/godown indicated in the application and or Showroom as per the oil company's standard layout out on the land/shop indicated in the application then the allotment of Indane distributorship made to the applicant will automatically stand cancelled.” 9. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, 3[rd] respondent has not provided the documents mentioned in clause 14 of Ext.P1, which is as per clause 9 of Ext.P4 W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 14 guidelines. In that circumstances, the 3[rd] respondent is not entitled to get full marks for the godown space and showroom space. It is also contended that, 3[rd] respondent's father's brothers, who are co-owners of the property provided, are not members of the 'family unit' and therefore, the said property cannot be taken into account. In that regard, learned counsel for petitioner has invited my attention to the Division Bench judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in **Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rahul Sahu** [2014 KHC 5073 = AIR 2014 MP 180] and Himachal Pradesh High Court in **Sunil Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.** [2015 KHC 1398 = AIR 2015 No Objection Certificate 150]. So far as the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is concerned, from paragraph 4, it is clear that, the stipulation was different and the term 'own' was defined to mean having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/family member(s) of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm or land belonging to parents & grandparents (both maternal and paternal) of the W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 15 applicant as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum. In the case of ownership/co-ownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required. 'Family Unit' has been further defined as follows: “'Family Unit' in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s) daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s) unmarried daughter(s).” So far as the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court is concerned, family was defined to include the following: “As per the definition, 'family' includes applicant, applicant's spouse, unmarried son W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 16 (s)/daughter(s) and also the parents. It does not include married son(s), married daughter (s) or brother.” The word 'owned' is defined thereunder in accordance with the notification as follows: “The word 'owned' according to the policy, means having clear ownership title in the name of the applicant/family member of the 'family unit'. 'Family unit' of a married applicant consists of self, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s)/daughter (s) and also his parents, but the petitioner had attached the documents with the application of the land which was offered by him, it was an ancestral property and consent of the family members have not been furnished. 'Owns' mean having clear title/registered sales deed of the suitable land/godown - based on documents.” 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that, so far as the property offered by the 3[rd] respondent is concerned, same was not belonging to a 'family unit' as provided in Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, the full marks awarded to the 3[rd] respondent cannot be sustained under law. That apart it is contended that, even though a complaint was filed before the W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 17 statutory authorities in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P1 notification, same was not considered by the authority in accordance with the provisions Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P4. Therefore, the decision arrived at by the said authorities are not in accordance with law and liable to be quashed. 11. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for 1[st] respondent Corporation submitted that, 3[rd] respondent has provided necessary documents along with her application so as to suit the stipulations contained under Exts.P1 and P4. It is also contended that, the 'family' defined in Exts.P1 and P4 is a larger family including father and his brothers. Moreover, 3[rd] respondent was a spinster at the time of submitting the application and therefore, father and father's brothers are also members of the family, which enables the 3[rd] respondent to offer the properties belonging to them subject to the stipulations contained under Exts.P1 and P4. Learned counsel for third respondent contended that, the applications submitted by the 3[rd] respondent was in accordance with law and absolutely following the prescriptions contained under W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 18 Ext.P1 notification, which is in paramateria with the stipulation with respect to the properties offered as per clause 9 of Ext.P4. It is also stated, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent, it is clearly deposed that, two brothers of petitioner's father submitted affidavit in addition to the power of attorney deed executed by them in favour of the 3[rd] respondent's father. The petitioner has not disputed the same by filing any reply or affidavit. Moreover, it is contended that, the authorities of the 1[st] respondent Corporation has considered the complaint raised by the petitioner and has arrived at a conclusive finding that, there is no discrepancy in the application submitted by the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, the said act of the officers of the 1[st] respondent is an official act, which has got a valid presumption under law. If the petitioner has a specific and genuine case that, the co-owners of the properties have not offered affidavits in accordance with the stipulations contained under Exts.P1 and P4, petitioner ought to have taken necessary steps to ensure that, such a course was not adopted by the 3[rd] respondent. Having W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 19 not done so, by a blunt statement the petitioner cannot establish that, the stipulations contained under Exts.P1 and P4 are not complied with by the 3[rd] respondent. Moreover, when there is a clear deposition made in the counter affidavit filed to the said extent and since the same is remaining uncontroverted, it can only be found that, the statement made by the petitioner contrary to the same are baseless and without any foundation. 12. Aforesaid discussion would reveal, the question to be decided centers around clauses 13 and 14 of Ext.P1. As pointed out earlier, the thrust of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is depending solely on the said provisions and specifically to the issue that, the coowners of the properties have not submitted affidavit as stipulated under Ext.P1. In my considered opinion, it is categorically stated in the orders passed by the statutory authorities viz., Exts.P12 and P14 that, there are no discrepancies in the application submitted by the 3[rd] respondent and the same was in accordance with the W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 20 stipulations and the marks were provided in accordance with the guidelines contained in the brochure for selection of LPG distributors. The orders passed by the officials of the first respondent is an official act and the presumption is available under law that, they are passed taking into account the stipulations contained in the notification as well as in the guidelines provided for the purpose. Moreover, it is specifically contended by respondent No.3 in her counter affidavit that, the co-owners of the properties, viz., father and his two brothers apart from the power of attorney, has submitted affidavits along with the application submitted by the 3[rd] respondent. The said clear deposition in the counter affidavit is not refuted by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. 13. On a compendious reading of Exts.P12 and P14 orders and the deposition made by the 3[rd] respondent in the counter affidavit that, all stipulations are complied with by the 3[rd] respondent in accordance with Exts.P1 and P4, it can only be presumed that, the statement made by the petitioner W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 21 contrary to the same can only be a baseless statement without any foundation of facts and law. Therefore, in my considered opinion, such a contention advanced by the petitioner cannot be sustained legally or factually. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied heavily on the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as Himachal Pradesh High Court quoted above to canvass the proposition that, father's brothers will not come under the term 'family unit'. In my considered opinion the nature of family described in the notification before the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as the Himachal Pradesh High Court were with specific reference to 'family unit', whereas in Ext.P1 notification there is no such bifurcation. Ext.P1 clearly says that, the property belonging to the members of the family shall also be considered if the stipulations contained thereunder are provided by the applicants. Therefore, so far as Ext.P1 notification is concerned, there is no further bifurcation of family to a family unit, whereas in the judgment relied on by the petitioner, the issue was relating to the family W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 22 unit of family members. The term 'family unit' is not comprehensively defined in any of the dictionaries. However, in Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, family is defined as; 1) a group of persons connected by blood, by affinity , or by law, esp. within two or three generations. 2) A group consisting of parents and their children. 3) A group of persons who live together and have a shared commitment to a domestic relationship. Family is defined in Chambers Concise Dictionary, new edition as follows; the household, or all those who live in one house (such as parents, children, servants); parents and their children; the children alone; the descendants of one common progenitor; a group of people related to one another, or otherwise connected. Therefore, the term family is a large and comprehensive term which will take in not only the father but also his brothers also, especially due to the fact that the 3[rd] respondent was a spinster at the time of submitting the application as per Ext.P1 notification. Even though, the term 'family unit' is not defined in any of the dictionaries, the term 'unit' is defined in W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 23 Chambers, Concise Dictionary, New Edition to mean, a group of persons forming a subdivision of a larger body. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent who offered ownership of property is entitled to get full marks in respect of godown and office space. 15. The foregoing discussion will show that, the bifurcation of a family to a family unit is not comprehended in Ext.P1 notification and therefore, the question with respect to the offer of the property with reference to a family unit will not arise as was considered by the two High Courts in the aforequoted judgments. So far as the issue with respect to non-awarding of mark to the petitioner in respect of showroom space is concerned, according to the petitioner, an incorrect information was furnished by the petitioner in clause 13B1 of the application. Therefore, as per the prescription contained under clause 14 of Ext.P1, marks were awarded as per the information furnished in the application. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that, respondents 1 and 2 have committed any grave illegality or arbitrariness in W.P.(C). No.37191 of 2009 24 not awarding mark to the petitioner in that regard. So also marks are provided as per clause 14.1 of Ext.P4 on each count as per the information furnished in the application. Taking note of the respective submissions made and the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not established any case of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in considering the application submitted by the 3[rd] respondent and there is no established evidence put forth by the petitioner to arrive at a conclusion that, 3[rd] respondent has not submitted the applications in accordance with the stipulations contained under Exts.P1 and P4 and that, the marks awarded by the 1[st] respondent and its officials are in violation of any guidelines issued for the purpose. In that view of the matter writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 10.1.2017