5. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent IOCL dated 12.06.2018, Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears from the Note-sheet dated 24.12.2014 that at the first instance, all the documents and credentials of the petitioner were accepted and he was, in fact evaluated as the first nominee. However, there was a second evaluation on 19.10.2016 as per which, not only marks which were earlier allotted to the petitioner under certain Heads have been reduced, the respondent no. 6 have been given marks under certain Heads which were otherwise not entitled to by him. Shri Singh, learned counsel by referring to the second evaluation documents dated 19.10.2016 has submitted that though the respondent no. 6 has been given more marks under the Heading ‘land’, the ownership of such land is disputed and there are also cases pending in the appropriate Court. He accordingly submits that while the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is unsustainable, the selection of the bid of the respondent no. 6 is also not in
