SANJAY KUMAR JHA v. PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY INSC 1070

NAME OF CASE SANJAY KUMAR JHA v. PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY INSC 1070 FACTS The Indian oil corporation in 2011 published an advertisement in the Dainik Jagran. Patna where it invited applications for different Kisan Seva Kendra dealerships at different locations. One of the locations included was one kilometre away from Giriyama (a district in Bihar) and thus the retail unit was referred to as the Giriyama outlet. Among the applications, a panel of 3 candidates was prepared with appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha occupying the first place with 90.73 marks and respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary, the second place with 80.93 marks. These marks were awarded based on various criteria including the presence of lend in Giriyama and the financial resources possessed by the applicant etc. based on the ranking subsequently, the appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was given the dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet. The respondent, Prakash Chandra Chaudhary challenged this allotment in the high court at patna through a writ petition claiming that he is who must be allotted the dealership. In the hearing of the writ petition, a singular judge bench ruled for the respondent and ordered the corporation to grant the dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet to the respondent. ISSUE 1. Was the property owned by Prakash Chandra Chaudhary in Giriyama? 2. Could they alter the ranking if there were mistakes in the mark evaluation process? 3. Did the High Court's decision on factual matters go beyond its authority, i.e. was it judicial outreach? 4. Was there evidence to back up the IOC's decision? 5. In these situations, what is the proper extent of judicial review? HOLDING AND RATIONALE The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and found for the appellant. It was held that the high court exhibited judicial overreach when dealing with the facts of the case and marks allotted by the corporation. It is well settled that in proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court also held that, as per the judgment of the high court, even if the marking was erroneous, it was not the duty of the High Court to declare which candidate would receive the highest marks making him/her the rightful candidate. There was also enough evidence to substantiate the reasoning given by the Indian oil corporation as to why the dealership was granted to Sanjay Kumar Jha, one of the reasons being that his land was bigger than that of the respondent. Only in circumstances of egregious illegality or serious injustices, neither of which existed in this instance, may courts get involved in administrative decisions. CITATIONS <ref>MANU/SC/1419/2018<ref>