JUDGMENT 1. On the basis of the chart given in the minutes of the proceeding dated 20th April, 2006 (Annexure 2), it is contended that even though the appellant quoted Rs. 90, 06, 330.32, less than the ceiling rate, his tender has been rejected and, as such, the order rejecting tender is illegal. 2. When this point was urged before the learned Single Judge, the same was considered on the basis of the records and also on the basis of the statements made on behalf of the parties. The learned Single Judge stated that in public auction while dealing with the tenders, the State is entitled to look for the best deal and for that it can even refuse to accept the highest bid, but while rejecting, it must record reasons: The reasons given for rejection, in our view, is valid especially when the minutes proceedings gave two reasons: (i) it is less than 15% from the ceiling rate; and (ii) the Corporation felt that in spite of increase of petrol and diesel price as well as fare of trucks along with other expenses and, as such, the rate quoted by the appellant is impractical to work on lesser rate and, hence the rate quoted by the appellant was rejected as the same was impractical and unworkable. 3. Since the reason given by the Corporation while rejecting the tender which was below the ceiling limit appears to be fully justified, the same was accepted by the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 4. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that even as per the minute of the proceeding, the rate quoted by the appellant is Rs. 90,06,330.32 and when the ceiling rate was fixed at Rs. 94,38,690.97, as such it is not less than 15% and it is only 4.58% less, it is liable to be rejected under Clauses 10 and 15 of the tender notice, only when the rate is less than 15% from the ceiling rate, though in this case the rate quoted by the appellant is only, 14.98%, and, as such, the order rejecting tender is liable to be set aside. 5. 5. Though at the first blush, the argument advanced by the appellant looks attractive, thorough probe will make the said argument not sound. We have thoroughly gone into the matter on the basis of the documents produced by the counsel for the respondents and also the chart (Annexure E), found at page 65 of the brief. As a matter of fact, the chart (Annexure E) produced by Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation, would show that it is 15% below the ceiling rate and also pointed out from paragraph 14 of the reply filed by the petitioner in the writ petition admitting that it is neither 15% nor below 15% from the ceiling rate. The same admission has been made in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder filed by the appellant to the inter locutory application dated 7.9.2006 filed by respondent No. 5. Thus it is clear that it is not correct to contend that it is only less than 4.58% from the ceiling rate, but on the other hand, it comes about 15% from the ceiling rate. 6. The tender was rejected not only on the ground that the rate was less than 15% from the ceiling rate but also on the reason that inspite of increasing price of petrol and diesel as well as fare of trucks and other expenditures, it would be impractical for the appellant to work on lesser rate and, as such, the same is impractical and unworkable. 7. Counsel for the appellant is unable to answer with regard to his admissions made in paragraphs 14 of the reply and paragraph 7 of the rejoinder to the I.A. Since the order rejecting tender was on valid reasons including impractical nature, we do not inclined to interfere with the order refusing to grant tender in favour of the appellant taking into consideration various factors. 8. We are conscious that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope to exercise its discretion especially when we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.