ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. This order disposes of Writ Petition No. 7250/2008, Writ Petition No. 7251/2008, Writ Petition No. 5951/2010, Writ Petition No. 5948/2010, Writ Petition No. 6899/2009 and Writ Petition No. 8506/2009, since they involve a common question of law. 2. Briefly stated facts are that Indore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as IDA, for brevity) issued different advertisements for inviting tenders for various plots situated at different sites in the city of Indore on the price higher than the minimum rate mentioned in the advertisement. Short particulars with relation to concerned writ petitions are given below: S. No (1) WP No. (2) Date of Advertisement & annexure (3) Number of plots & minimum rate per sq. meter (4) Sche me No. (5) Petitioners tender for plot, size and at the rate of (6) Board's counter offer at the rate of per sq. meter (7) 1. 7250/08 02.07.2008, P/1 125, Rs. 10,000/ 140 Plot No. 59-D, ad-measuring 216 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 21,500/ 24,400/ 2. 7251/08 02.07.2008, P/1 125, Rs,10,000/ 140 Plot No. 111-C, admeasuring 288 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 24,200/ 27,200/ 3. 5951/10 27.07.2009, P/1 25, Rs. 12,000/ 134 Plot No. 94-A, admeasuring 216 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 12,123/ 21,678/ 4. 5948/10 27,07.2009, P/1 25, Rs. 12,000/ 134 134-B, admeasuring 135 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 12,111/ 21,678/ 5. 6899/09 27.07.2009, P/3 25, Rs. 12,000/ 134 132-D, admeasuring 153 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 17,501/ 21,678/ 6. 8506/09 02.07.2008, P/2 102, Rs. 6,000/ 134 239-B, admeasuring 216 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 15,205/ 21,678/ 3. Admittedly, the rate offered by the Petitioners' in respect of respective plots was the highest in respect of their category. IDA, instead of accepting the tender, issued letters to the Petitioners in the nature of counter offer, intimating thereby that the Board of IDA has decided to give the aforesaid plot at the rate quoted above in column No. 7. The Petitioners did not accept the offer. Instead, they submitted objections that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them before issuance of the offer letter and further before increasing minimum rate mentioned in the advertisement. Objections of the Petitioners have been rejected. The Petitioners did not accept the offer. Instead, they submitted objections that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them before issuance of the offer letter and further before increasing minimum rate mentioned in the advertisement. Objections of the Petitioners have been rejected. Hence, the petitions for quashing of counter offer letter as well as the letter of rejection with a further prayer to direct the Respondent-IDA to allot respective plot to the Petitioners on the price quoted by them in the tender. The petition is based mainly on the ground that the rate offered by the Petitioners, being the highest amongst the tenderers of a particular category, their tenders ought to have been accepted. Further, the IDA has no right or power to reject the tenders of the Petitioners and issue offer letters at a higher rate than the rate quoted by the Petitioners because the same was admittedly above the minimum rate mentioned in the advertisement. It is further submitted that the IDA is bound by the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement and a strict adherence to the terms and conditions contained in the tender is required to be observed. For convenience, references to annexure have been taken from Writ Petition No. 8506/2009 unless mentioned otherwise. 4. In the return, it has been stated that all the tenders were placed before the Board of IDA. After considering the same, it was decided by the Board that all the highest bidders may be offered to accept allotment at the rate mentioned in column No. 7. They were intimated that in case of their failure to give acceptance within fifteen days, fresh tenders may be invited. Pursuant thereto, offer letters were issued to the Petitioners. Such offers were given to all the tenderers falling in the relevant category. Aforesaid decision of the Board was taken considering all the relevant factors pursuant to resolution No. 149 dated 02.09.2009. 5. The Respondent placed before this Court the minutes of the Board of IDA, which vide resolution No. 249 dated 30.12.2009 took the said decision. 6. Petitioners, by way of rejoinder, further stated that rejection of their tenders, despite being the highest for the plot concerned, is illegal since the Petitioners have quoted rate higher than the minimum prescribed rate, as per the advertisement contained in Annexure P/1. Their tenders ought to have been accepted. 6. Petitioners, by way of rejoinder, further stated that rejection of their tenders, despite being the highest for the plot concerned, is illegal since the Petitioners have quoted rate higher than the minimum prescribed rate, as per the advertisement contained in Annexure P/1. Their tenders ought to have been accepted. Respondents by rejecting their tenders have acted illegally and arbitrarily. 7. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in WP No. 7250/2008, WP No. 7251/2008, WP No. 5951/2010 and WP No. 5948/2010, Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in WP No. 6899/2009 and Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in WP No. 8506/2009 made their submissions in support of their clients. Their main contention is that the rates offered by the Petitioners being the highest in their respective category, ought to have been accepted and the concerning plots ought to have been allotted to them. According to the learned Counsel, action of the IDA in issuing offer letters at higher rate is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. IDA has no power or authority to enhance the rate of the plots in question. IDA has also acted with discrimination because in certain cases, the plots are allotted on the minimum rate, as described in the advertisement. 8. Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the action of the IDA. 9. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 10. On perusal of the advertisement contained in Annexure P/1, it is crystal clear that IDA while inviting tender applications prescribed the minimum rate per square meter. There is no mention in Annexure P/1 that the plot would be necessarily allotted to the highest bidder. Further, right to accept / reject a tender was reserved by the IDA vide Annexure P/1. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5951/2009 applied for allotment of plot No. 94-A at the rate of Rs. 12,123/-per sq. meter, which obviously was higher than the minimum prescribed rate of Rs. 12,000/-per sq. meter. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since IDA has quoted minimum rate at the rate of Rs. 12,000/-per sq. meter and the Petitioner has offered the highest rate for the said plot at the rate of Rs. 12,123/-per sq. meter, which obviously was higher than the minimum prescribed rate of Rs. 12,000/-per sq. meter. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since IDA has quoted minimum rate at the rate of Rs. 12,000/-per sq. meter and the Petitioner has offered the highest rate for the said plot at the rate of Rs. 12,123/-per sq. meter, the tender of the Petitioner ought to have been accepted and the same cannot be rejected in the impugned manner. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mangal Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of MP and Ors. 1994 JLJ 571 . In the case of Mangal Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the tender of the highest bidder was found to have been rejected, without assigning any reason. In the writ petitions before this Court, IDA is not found to have rejected the tenders of the Petitioners, but has given a counter offer to the highest bidders, including the Petitioners. Thus, the ratio of the decision of the case cited by the Petitioners' learned Counsel cannot be invoked, due to distinguishable facts. 11. On behalf of the Petitioners reliance has also been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Shri Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India and Ors. reported as AIR 1986 SC 1527 , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors. reported as AIR 1979 SC 1628 , Munindra Nath Upadhyaya v. State of UP and Ors. reported as AIR 1992 SC 566 , Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP and Ors. reported as AIR 1991 SC 537 , United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 404 . In none of these decisions, it is held that the authority is precluded from giving counter offer to the highest tenderer. This being so, the Petitioners do not get any support from these decisions. 12. Now, coming to the merits of the petitions, it may be seen that the tenders were invited for the plots in question on a rate higher than the minimum prescribed rate. Right to accept the tender was reserved by the IDA, as revealed in Annexure P/1. IDA is well empowered to reserve such a right, by virtue of allotment regulations of IDA, which includes issuance of counter offer. Right to accept the tender was reserved by the IDA, as revealed in Annexure P/1. IDA is well empowered to reserve such a right, by virtue of allotment regulations of IDA, which includes issuance of counter offer. After receiving the offers, it came into notice of the Board of IDA that the land in question was quite costly and could have fetched higher money. IDA obviously has every right to protect its interest without contravention of law. The offer of the Respondents is specific inasmuch as it has been clearly stated that after considering all the tenders and the relevant factors, it was found that minimum price of the land in the area in question was more than the prescribed rate. Considering the same, it was resolved vide resolution of the Board that counter offers may be given to the highest bidders at the rate prescribed by the Board. Resolution was duly passed and the Board of IDA, after taking such decision, issued offer letters to all the highest bidders, including the Petitioners. Petitioners, despite submitting rejoinder, failed to establish that the rate assessed by the IDA was not genuine or was fictional. Case of the IDA is strengthened by the fact that majority of the tenderers accepted counter offers. 13. Law relating to the tenders prohibits the authority concerned from accepting inferior tender, ignoring the highest one, without issuing a show cause notice or without assigning any reason. The authority is further prohibited from rejecting the highest offer in an arbitrary manner or with mala fide. It is not the case of the Petitioners herein that any undue advantage was given by the Respondents to another tenderer in the category of the Petitioners under the garb of impugned action. It is not further case of the Petitioners that any plot was allotted to any other tenderer at the rate less than the rate quoted in the counter offer. Instead, it is found that the Respondents, after taking the aforesaid decision, issued offer letters to all the highest tenderers, without exhibiting discrimination. Such offer letters did not amount to rejection of tenders, instead they are found to be in the nature of counter offers, which is not prohibited in law. Authority dealing with the tenders is not precluded from giving counter offers, in particular facts and circumstances of the case. Such offer letters did not amount to rejection of tenders, instead they are found to be in the nature of counter offers, which is not prohibited in law. Authority dealing with the tenders is not precluded from giving counter offers, in particular facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we hold that the IDA was well justified in giving counter offers, in the facts and circumstances of the writ petitions in hand, to the highest tenderers, including the Petitioners and the same did not amount to rejection of tenders. This action of Respondents cannot be termed as illegal, being not violative of law relating to tenders, in any manner. It was well within the discretion of the Petitioners to accept the counter offer, in due manner. Had there been acceptance of the Petitioners about the counter offer, they could have insisted before this Court for allotment of the plot in terms of counter offer. This having not been done, the claim of the Petitioners for grant of plot in question cannot be legally acceded to. 14. During the arguments, the proceedings of the Board of IDA were made available. Copy of the relevant resolution is also on record as Annexure P/2 in Writ Petition No. 6899/2009, which revealed that the minimum rate mentioned in the advertisement in certain categories was not enhanced by the Board in the resolution. One of such categories is found to be the category of employees of IDA itself. It has been contended that relaxation in price has been deliberately given to the employees of IDA, which is highly discriminatory. IDA cannot be permitted to unduly favour its employees by giving such relaxation for undue enrichment. On due consideration, we observe that the Petitioners did not fall within the category of employees of IDA. Such employees have not been impleaded in the writ petitions. In their absence, legality of allotment to them cannot be examined. This Court refrain for the time being from commenting on Board's action of not enhancing the minimum rate in respect of plots reserved for IDA's employees. It is made clear that this issue, if raised in proper manner before appropriate forum, may be examined in accordance with law. In their absence, legality of allotment to them cannot be examined. This Court refrain for the time being from commenting on Board's action of not enhancing the minimum rate in respect of plots reserved for IDA's employees. It is made clear that this issue, if raised in proper manner before appropriate forum, may be examined in accordance with law. However, we observe that the Petitioners belonging to a class other than the class of employees of IDA, cannot legally insist to seek allotment of plot at such rate, more so, because minimum rate prescribed in the advertisement relating to the plots claimed by the Petitioners are different and the counter offers received by them pursuant to the Board's resolution were not accepted by them. 15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find that all the petitions do not deserve to be accepted and hence dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. C. c. as per rules.