A selection objection cannot be rejected without reasoned findings on the specific grounds raised.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 25 June 2026 by the Sub-Divisional Controller and Ex-Officio Assistant Director, Food and Supply, which rejected his objections to the selection of the private respondent for an FPS dealership.

The authority had conducted a physical enquiry and upheld the selection, finding that the objections were not substantiated.

The petitioner contended that the order did not properly address the specific objections in his representation, including those concerning the proposed godown, access road, waterlogging, address documents, and lease deed.

The private respondent submitted that an offer letter had already been issued.

The judgment refers to the representation as dated 12 March 2026 in one place and 12 February 2026 in another.

1. Whether the order dated 25 June 2026 was liable to be quashed for failing to record reasoned findings on the specific objections raised in the petitioner’s representation

2. Whether the petitioner’s representation required fresh consideration through an independent enquiry and a hearing for both parties

No specific statutory provision or precedent is identified as the basis of the Court’s decision

The Court applied the principles that an administrative authority deciding a party’s objections must address the material issues raised and give reasons for its decision, and that reconsideration should be conducted independently and after affording the affected parties an opportunity to be heard

Although the authority had conducted a physical enquiry, the Court found that its order did not record findings addressing the specific grievances set out in paragraph 10 of the petitioner’s representation.

The enquiry’s general conclusions were therefore insufficient to demonstrate reasoned consideration of those objections.

The Court did not determine the merits of the competing eligibility claims; instead, it held that the deficiencies in the order warranted fresh consideration by the competent authority.

It directed respondent no. 2 to reconsider the petitioner’s representation, conduct an independent enquiry, share the Google location and map, hear both parties, and issue a reasoned order without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

The order directs that the decision be made within six weeks from communication of the judgment and communicated thereafter; it also directs the concerned authority to maintain status quo pending the decision.

The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the merits and without an order as to costs.