ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) IN this case, the respondents had issued an auction notification on 27-4-2006 for excavation of the sand from the river course of kaveri river at Kattemadu village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District. Different points have been assigned different block numbers. The petitioner has participated in the auction of one such block i. e. block no. 4. Auction was fixed on 10-5-2006 in the office of the Tahsildar at 11. 00 A. M. The minimum rate fixed by the competent authority was Rs. 5,000/- per acre for excavation of ordinary sand. The auction was held on 10-5-2006 and the petitioner was admittedly the highest bidder. Petitioner has deposited 25% of the bid amount with the 3rd respondent on the same day. The 3rd respondent has issued an endorsement as per Annexure-C intimating the petitioner that the committee has not accepted the bid of the petitioner since it is on the lower side and to take back 25% of the amount deposited earlier. Petitioner has called in question the said endorsement in this writ petition. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction. He has already deposited 25% ofthe auction amount on the spot. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in refusing to grant the lease in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned endorsement. It is further submitted that the petitioner has spent substantial amount for repair of the approach road in order to transport the sand from the site in question. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to contact the 3rd respondent and secure full information, before participating in the tender. It is further contended that the committee constituted for the purpose of auction did not accept the bid of the petitioner because the amount offered was on the lower side and ifthe respondents were to accept the bid of the petitioner, it would have caused financial loss to the State Government. It is further argued that for the purpose of auctioning the sand on the river course of Kodagu district, the State Government has constituted Taluk Level Sand auction Committee by a notification dated 16-10-2000. It is further argued that for the purpose of auctioning the sand on the river course of Kodagu district, the State Government has constituted Taluk Level Sand auction Committee by a notification dated 16-10-2000. The committee has decided to cancel the tender cum auction because the bid amount received was grossly inadequate when compared to the prevailing market rate. The 3rd respondent is a Member-Secretary of the committee who has intimated the petitioner the decision taken by the committee. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the respondents are justified in cancelling the tender cum auction held on 10-5-2006. ( 5 ) THE Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') provides for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. Section 15 of the Act empowers the State Goverments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. In accordance with aforesaid provision, the government of Karnataka has framed the Karnataka Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules' ). Rule-3 (1) of the Rules states that no person shall undertake any quarrying operation in respect of any minor mineral in any land except under or in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying lease or license or quarrying permit granted under the said Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 states that no quarrying lease or license or quarrying permit shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the Rules. Sub-Rule (b) of Rule-2 defines the 'competent Authority' means a Competent Authority appointed under Rule-4. Rule-4 of the Rules states that the State government may by notification, appoint the Competent Authority for all or any of the purpose of these Rules. Rule 8-B provides for notifying the area for grant of lease by tender cum auction. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B states that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, the competent authority may by notification direct that quarrying lease to quarry specified or non-specified minor mineral in any area belonging to the State Government and available for grant as may be specified in such notification shall be granted by tender cum auction in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-IV-A. Chapter-IV of the rules provides for grant of quarry lease for non-specified minor minerals. Sub-Rule (2-B) of Rule 21 as amended by notification CI 2 mmn (98)2 dated 16-10-2000 and CI 46 MMN 2004 dated 28-4-2004 is as under: " (2-B) Nothing in this rule shall apply to grant of quarrying lease to quarry ordinary sand. The grant of ordinary sand shall be by auction in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter iv-A of the rules. (a) The period for which a quarrying lease may be granted by auction shall be one year. (b) Quarrying lease may be granted under this sub-rule for a period of three years and the consideration for grant of such lease shall be equal to: ft) the bid amount for the first year; (ii) the amount payable for the first year plus ten per cent of such amount for the second year ; (iii) the amount payable for the second year plus ten per cent of such amount of the third year; provided that if for any reason to be recorded in writing auction is not completed for grant of a fresh lease, before the expiry of the period of the quarrying lease, the lease may be extended in favour of the original lease for a further period not exceeding one year with the prior approval of the State Government on payment of the amount payable for the third year plus fifteen per cent of such amount and subject to other conditions of lease. (c) There shall be a taluk level auction committee consisting of the following members. i) Assistant Commissioner of the Chairman respective Jurisdiction. ii) Tahasildar of the respective Member jurisdiction. iii) Executive officer of the Member respective taluk Panchayath. iv) Senior Geologist/ Geologist of Member the respective Jurisdiction Secretary v) The provisions of rules, 7, 29, 31 (2), (3) and (4) of the chapter II and IV, of Rules 31a, 31d, 31e, 31g, 31h, 31i, 31k, of Rules 31a, 31d, 31e, 31g, 31h, 311, 31k and the provisions of Rule of Rules 30, 31l and 31o of chapter IV A shall mutatis and mutandis apply to quarry leases granted. " ( 6 ) CHAPTER IV-A of the Rules provides for grant of quarrying lease by tender-cum-auction. " ( 6 ) CHAPTER IV-A of the Rules provides for grant of quarrying lease by tender-cum-auction. The said Chapter provides for issuance of Notification for grant of quarrying lease, manner of submission of tender, procedure for filing joint tenders, disqualification of a person from submitting the tender, withdrawal of tender, consideration by tender-cum-auction, undertaking to be given with tender or bid, payment to be made, rejection of tenders or bids, confirmation, execution of quarrying lease etc. , Rule. 31-H of the Rules provides for making the payment of the bid amount which is as under: "31-H Payment to be made: (1) The person whose tender or offer or bid is accepted provisionally shall within fifteen days of such acceptance is announced, make a deposit of the amount equal to the tender or offer or bid which is provisionally accepted. The earnest money deposit paid, along with tender at the auction shall be adjusted against the amount. (2) If the payment as required by sub-rule (1) is not paid, the provisional acceptance of the tender of offer or bid shall stand cancelled the earnest money shall be forfeited and the director may either accept provisionally the next higher tender or offer or bid or grant the lease afresh in such manner as the State Government may direct. (3) In the later case, the grant shall be at the risk of the defaulter who shall not be entitled to any excess amount realised but shall be liable for the losses sustained by the State government. The Director shall be entitled to assess such loss and recover it from the defaulter as if it were an arrear of land revenue. A defaulter shall not be entitled to submit tender or offer or bid at the auction held under sub-rule (2 ). " Ruled 31-I provides for rejection of tender which is as under: "31-I Rejection of tenders or bids: The director may reject any tender or offer or bid submitted to him on the ground that such tender or offer or bid is too low or for any other reason, to be recorded in writing. " Ruled 31-I provides for rejection of tender which is as under: "31-I Rejection of tenders or bids: The director may reject any tender or offer or bid submitted to him on the ground that such tender or offer or bid is too low or for any other reason, to be recorded in writing. " Rule 31 -J provides for confirmation of a bid which reads as under: "31-J Confirmation - (1) Where the director has accpted provisionally a tender or offer or bid, he shall forthwith submit to the state Government the records of the proceedings conducted by him, for confirmation. (2) The State Government shall, on a consideration of the records under sub-rule (1)pass an order either confirming the bid or tender for grant of a quarrying lease or refusing to confirm the same. The order passed thereon shall be communicated forthwith to all concerned. " Rule 31 -K provides for execution of quarrying lease which is as under: "31-K. Execution of quarrying lease - The person whose tender or offer or bid is confirmed under Rule 31-J shall execute a lease deed. The provisions of (Rule-18) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of execution of lease deed under this rule. " ( 7 ) IT is clear from the said provisions that Rule 21 is not applicable for grant of lease of ordinary sand having regard to Sub-Sec. (2-B) of rule 21. Chapter IVA is made applicable for grant of lease of ordinary sand, which is always by tender cum auction. As per Clause (a) of sub-rule (2-B) of rule 21, the period for which lease may be granted by auction shall be one year. The auction committee is constituted for the said purpose as per Clause (c) of Sub-rule (2-B)of rule 21. In the present case, Taluk Level Sand Auction Committee has taken a decision to cancel the tender cum auction. The 3rd respondent is its Member-Secretary who has only intimated the decision of the Committee. The contention of the petitioner that the endorsement at Annexure-C is without jurisdiction is without any basis. ( 8 ) THE competent authority has notified the area for grant of lease to extract ordinary sand on the river course of Kodagu District as provided under Rule 9-B of the Rules on 27-4-2006. The contention of the petitioner that the endorsement at Annexure-C is without jurisdiction is without any basis. ( 8 ) THE competent authority has notified the area for grant of lease to extract ordinary sand on the river course of Kodagu District as provided under Rule 9-B of the Rules on 27-4-2006. The notification makes it clear that the applicant has to secure full information regarding the terms of the tender from the 3rd respondent before participating in the tender. The rate fixed for excavation of ordinary sand was Rs. 5,000/- per acre. Two acres of sand available area in Kattemadu in Kaveri river course in block-4 was auctioned on 10-5-2006. Petitioner has offered bid amount of Rs. 13,000/ -. He was admittedly the highest bidder. The petitioner has deposited 25% of the bid amount as per the condition of the auction. The Tender auction Committee has decided to cancel the said tender cum auction. ( 9 ) AS noticed from Chapter IV-A of the Rules, governs the tender cum auction of ordinary sand. Sub-rule (7) of rule 31 -F states that after all the areas are notified, the competent authority shall open the tenders and record the offers contained in each tender. He may accept provisionally the highest amount offered in the tender or at the auction and announce the same. That is what exactly has been done by the 3rd respondent while issuing the receipt at Annexure-A. The acceptance of the offer was provisional. The confirmation has to be made under Rule 31 -J of the Rules. The committee has cancelled the tender cum auction on the ground that the bid amount was grossly inadequate. Petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the respondents. It is settled that an anxiety to enhance the revenue of the state in commercial transactions if it is adquately supported by material is sufficiently good reason to refuse to accept the highest bid and throw open the transaction for more effective commercial competition once again. The refusal to accept the highest offer was actuated by looking for better offer. The approach of the respondents to earn enhanced revenue is a good reason to refuse the contract of the highest bidder. The reasons assigned by the respondents for refusing to accept the highest bid of the petitioner is just and reasonable. The refusal to accept the highest offer was actuated by looking for better offer. The approach of the respondents to earn enhanced revenue is a good reason to refuse the contract of the highest bidder. The reasons assigned by the respondents for refusing to accept the highest bid of the petitioner is just and reasonable. Inm/s. STAR enterprises AND OTHERS vs CITY AND INDUSTRIAL development CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. , and OTHERS', the Apex Court has held that the State while dealing with tenders is entitled to look for the best deal and for that it can refuse to accept even the highest bid. It has been held thus: "the State is certainly entitled to look for the best deal in regard to its properties. This has been accepted by several decisions of this court with reference to State action under the excise laws. There is no allegation ofmala fides in the conduct of respondent 1 in refusing to accept the highest offer. We must, therefore, proceed on the footing that respondent 1 acted bona fide and in refusing to accept the highest offers of the appellants in regard to specific plots has been actuated by the consideration of looking for better offers for the specific plot in the economic interests of respondent 1. " ( 10 ) THE arugments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has spent substantial amount for repair of the approach road in order to transport the sand from the site in question after acceptance of 25% of the bid amount is equally fallacious. First of all, he should have secured full particulars of the tender cum auction before participating in the tender as provided in the tender notification. Though he was the highest bidder and deposited 25% of the bid amount, the acceptance of tender was provisional. It is only after execution of the lease deed under rule 31 -K, petitioner is entitled to excavate the sand. Section 3 (1) of the Rules are very clear that a person shall undertake quarrying operation in accordance with the terms and conditions of quarrying lease. First of all, there is no material on record to show that petitioner has spent any amount for repair of the approach road. Even otherwise, he should not have started repairing the approach road before execution of the lease deed. First of all, there is no material on record to show that petitioner has spent any amount for repair of the approach road. Even otherwise, he should not have started repairing the approach road before execution of the lease deed. ( 11 ) I do not find any merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.