Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for the relief, inter alia, to quash and set aside the decision dated 2.11.2010 – Annexure-A, whereby the petitioner has been intimated that since he was not found eligible, his tender has not been accepted. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent to permit the participation of the petitioner at the auction proceedings, which were to be held on 18.11.2010 and the alternative prayer made by the petitioner is that the auction proceedings dated 18.11.2010 be quashed and set aside. 2. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr. Y.N. Oza, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 8. The other respondents are served, but they have not appeared. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that certain conditions included in the tender were only formal and the opportunity could have been given to meet with the same before the forms were opened. It was submitted that as per the petitioner, certain conditions are such that it is impossible to be complied with namely; that the production of the Income Tax Department’s clearance certificate though such practice has been discontinued for a long time by the Income Tax Department to issue such certificate. It was, therefore, submitted that the decision on the part of the concerned respondent authority for rejection of the tender of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. The Learned Counsel further contended that as per the petitioner, there is a cartel or ring amongst the offerers/tenderers, whose tenders are found eligible. It has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to raise the offer much higher for the tender in question in comparison to the upset price and the offer, which may be realized at the auction and, therefore, also as the auction is not to result into genuine offer on account of the alleged cartel amongst the tenderers huge public revenue would suffered and, therefore, this Court may interfere. 5. We may record that at the time when this Court considered the matter for the first time on 18.11.2010, following order was passed:— 1. It has been stated by Mr. Pandya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per the instructions received from his client, the highest offer was of Rs. 5. We may record that at the time when this Court considered the matter for the first time on 18.11.2010, following order was passed:— 1. It has been stated by Mr. Pandya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per the instructions received from his client, the highest offer was of Rs. 81 lac as against the upset price of Rs. 74,00,000/- and odd amount. He submitted that his offer is of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and to show the genuineness of the offer, he is ready to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before 20.11.2010 and the further amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- on or before 22.11.2010, so as to comply with the condition of 25% of the offer amount. He further declare before the Court that in the event the petitioner withdraws the offer and/or the present petition, the petitioner shall not object to the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 40 lac, which he may deposit. 2. In above view of the matter, notice returnable on 25.11.2010. It is further observed and directed that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 25 lac on or before 20.11.2010 and Rs. 15 lac on or before 22.11.2010 before this Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the present proceedings and the petitioner shall also file declaration by way of an undertaking to the effect that he shall not object to the forfeiture of the amount in the event the petitioner withdraws the offer and/or the present petition and such undertaking shall be filed on or before 20.11.2010 with this Court. 3. By ad-interim order, it is directed that any action pursuant to the auction shall remain stayed. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall be at liberty to communicate the order to the concerned authority and the learned AGP shall also intimate to the concerned authority. Office to supply copy of the order to the learned AGP. Direct service today is permitted.” 6. The petitioner thereafter by way of compliance of the aforesaid order and to maintain his offer for Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, has deposited Rs. 40,00,000/- with this Court. Further, as per the above referred order, the action pursuant to the auction was stayed, but prior thereto, as per the Respondent No. 8, the auction was held and he offered the highest amount amongst the eligible offerers was of Rs. 81,00,000/-. 7. 1,60,00,000/-, has deposited Rs. 40,00,000/- with this Court. Further, as per the above referred order, the action pursuant to the auction was stayed, but prior thereto, as per the Respondent No. 8, the auction was held and he offered the highest amount amongst the eligible offerers was of Rs. 81,00,000/-. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8 contended that since his offer was found highest and he has deposited the requisite amount as per the condition of the tender, he would be entitled to the work order and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the said ground. He further contended that as the petitioner was not eligible to enter the zone of consideration, no grievance can be heard from his mouth for submitting higher offer, since he is not eligible at all to participate at the auction. Mr. Oza, Learned Counsel submitted that under these circumstances, this Court may dismiss the petition. 8. Whereas, the learned AGP submitted, inter alia, that it is true that Respondent No. 8 has offered the highest amount at the auction, but the fact remains that though this Court had stayed the action pursuant to the auction, the auction was held, but further action is not taken. It was also submitted that, as per the original file and upon his enquiry, the District Collector has not taken any decision to accept the offer or not and at this stage, Court may examine the aspect as to whether the Respondent No. 8 has any right to assert for issuance of the work order or not. It was also submitted that as one of the offerers, the petitioner herein, whose tender was not found eligible, has made declaration before this Court for offering Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees one crore sixty lac only), the matter will have to be given a fresh look by the District Collector on the aspects as to whether the genuine price is being realized or not and he submitted that the State would abide by the directions, if issued, for inter se bidding amongst the petitioner and the highest offerer – Respondent No. 8 herein or in alternative, this Court may issue appropriate directions, keeping in view the public interest and the money to be realized by the Government. He submitted that as the matter is pending before this Court, no decision is taken by the District Collector on the aspects of any further action to be taken in this regard or not. 9. We may state that as per the Condition No.9 of the tender, the person, who has offered highest price, was to deposit 25% of the amount immediately and had to furnish the surety bond as prescribed. However, the said condition specifically provides that thereafter appropriate orders will be required to be passed by the competent authority for acceptance of the bid and for grant of work contract. It also provides that mining operations can be undertaken only after the date of the agreement. 10. Under these circumstances, mere deposit of the 25% of the amount at the auction itself does not create any vested right for the work order/issuance of the work order, but what is required for such purpose is to get the approval/acceptance of the competent authority and the orders of the competent authority for issuance of the work order and until the auction is accepted and approved by the competent authority, there would not be any question of issuance of any work order. 11. As declared by the learned AGP on behalf of the State Authorities, the competent authority for acceptance of the bid is the District Collector and as per him, no decision is rendered for acceptance of the bid or for issuance of the work order. In order to support the said declaration, the original file is also made available to the Court for perusal. 12. Under these circumstances, if the matter is at a stage where the highest has offered the offer and has deposited 25% of the amount, but the competent authority has yet not taken any decision for acceptance of the bid or auction proceedings and/or for issuance of any work order, it will have to be considered about the appropriate orders to be passed in the present proceedings in this regard. 13. It is undisputed position that the upset price as per the advertisement was Rs. 76,00,000/-. As against the same, amongst the eligible participants, the highest offer of Rs. 81,00,000/- has come forward, whereas the petitioner herein has offered the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, which is approximately double the highest offer received. 13. It is undisputed position that the upset price as per the advertisement was Rs. 76,00,000/-. As against the same, amongst the eligible participants, the highest offer of Rs. 81,00,000/- has come forward, whereas the petitioner herein has offered the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, which is approximately double the highest offer received. Further, it is not a mere say or offer of the petitioner, but the genuineness, as was ordered to be tested vide the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2010, has been satisfied by deposit of the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- by the petitioner pursuant thereto. Therefore, it is a matter, where if the auction proceedings are allowed to go as it is, the State may suffer loss of revenue of about Rs. 79,00,000/- That has come at a stage where the decision is yet not taken by the competent authority for acceptance of the auction or the offer of the petitioner. 14. We may record that in order to see that a further higher amount may be realized, a query was put to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 as to whether Respondent No. 8 would be desirous to enter, inter se, bidding with the petitioner for raising the offer or not, but in response thereto, on behalf of the Respondent No. 8, it was declared that Respondent No. 8 is not desirous to raise the offer, nor is desirous to have, inter se, bidding, but he would stand by his right as per the offer made of Rs. 81,00,000/-. So far as the offer of the offerers, including the persons whose tenders were rejected are concerned, they have already been impleaded as party namely; Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, but they have chosen not to appear. The petitioner has shown willingness to raise offer than Rs. 1,60,00,000/- if inter se biding is made. 15. Under these circumstances, we find that when the matter is at the stage of decision to be taken for acceptance of the offer or otherwise by the competent authority and in view of the present litigation and the facts and circumstances narrated herein above, it would be required for the District Collector to take into consideration the higher offer coming forward of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- of the petitioner as against the highest offer received at the auction of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- of the petitioner as against the highest offer received at the auction of Rs. 81,00,000/- only and to decide as to whether the fresh auction should be held of issuing advertisement by inviting fresh offers or not, keeping in view the larger public interest of the revenue to be realized by the Government from the work in question for the alleged mining operations. We leave the matter at that stage without observing any further on the said aspects, leaving it to the wisdom of the District Collector, who is the competent authority, but as it was recorded by us in the order dated 18.11.2010, the petitioner would not be permitted to back out from his offer at least of Rs. 1.60 crore and if he chooses to do so, it may entail forfeiture of Rs. 40 lac, which has already been deposited with this Court and for which the undertaking is also filed. 16. On the aspects of the condition of the tender, we find considerable force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the Income Tax Department has discontinued the practice of issuing Income Tax Clearance Certificate, it may not be possible for the offerer to submit such certificate and, therefore, whether such condition, which is not possible to be complied with by the offerer can be insisted in the conditions of the tender would also be an aspect to be considered by the District Collector. But we find that as the District Collector is yet to decide the aspects of approval/acceptance of the auction and/or non-acceptance/non-approval of the auction proceedings and/or the issuance of fresh tender, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no final view deserves to be expressed on the said aspects. 17. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8 did rely upon certain decisions of the Apex Court for contending that once an offer is accepted at a particular amount, merely because another higher offer comes forward by the person, who is not at all eligible, the same would not be a ground for set at naught the auction, nor the Court would grant the relief at the instance of the person, who is not eligible. 18. 18. We find that as observed by us in the present case only highest offer is recorded of the Respondent No. 8 who has deposited 25% of the amount, but his offer has not been approved/accepted by the competent authority, nor any decision is taken for issuance of work order and under these circumstances, the matter is at a stage where the decision for acceptance of the offer is yet to be taken. Hence, the proposition on which the reliance is placed is of no help to the Respondent No. 8. 19. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we find that the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:— (1) The District Collector, keeping in view the observations made herein above, shall take appropriate decision for acceptance/approval and/or to issue fresh tender by inviting fresh offer of the interested persons. However, at both the stages, the offer of the petitioner of Rs. 1.60 crore shall be taken into consideration as recorded by us in the present order and the decision of the District Collector shall be placed in the record of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. (2) The amount of Rs. 40 lac shall remain with this Court until the decision is taken by the District Collector. After the decision is taken by the District Collector, it would be open to either side to move this Court for passing appropriate orders in connections with Rs. 40 lac lying with this Court in the present proceedings by a separate application. 20. The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. P P P P P