ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals which arise out of same judgment dated 25.6.2012 whereby writ petition preferred by respondent, M/s Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd., has been allowed by the writ Court. 2. Learned A.A.G.-1 appearing for the State of Bihar has led the arguments. According to him there is no concluded contract in favour of the writ petitioner and hence no relief could have been given even by the civil Court much less by the writ Court. His other submission is that the finding of the learned writ Court that the joint venture company would meet the test of a government company because it meets the requirement of subsidiary company is erroneous in law. 3. In view of catena of the judgments of the Apex Court starting from the case of R.D. Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority and Ors., (1979)3 SC 489, it is well settled in law that in the matters of government contract where tenders have been invited, the eligible tenderer cannot be denied the benefits of being the most suitable tenderer on any arbitrary grounds. In the present case such denial to the writ petitioner was only on account of a legal opinion given by the then Advocate General that the joint venture company could never be a government company. The learned writ Court has discussed the law and the facts in detail to come to a finding that the opinion of learned Advocate General was erroneous. That was the only basis for decision by the State Government to do away with the entire exercise of selecting through the process of tender a suitable partner for joint venture company for exploiting coal block allocated to the state of Bihar by the Central Government. As per terms of the grant (Annexure-A/1) the mining activities could be carried out by one of the appellants namely Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation or a separate company to be created with participation of the Corporation but such created company should also be a government company. 4. In our considered view, the decision of the writ Court is based upon a correct appreciation of the relevant facts and law and also in public interest. 4. In our considered view, the decision of the writ Court is based upon a correct appreciation of the relevant facts and law and also in public interest. The delay on the part of the State of Bihar or the other appellant, the Corporation led to a situation where the central government proceeded to issue an order for de-allocating the coal block. That order was stayed at the instance of the writ petitioner and the writ Court has granted relief by directing, inter alia, not to de-allocate the coal block. The appellants would cause harm to public interest especially in respect of the state of Bihar, if they delay the entire exercise of mining the coal block in question which may again lead to disallocation of the coal block. 5. Learned A.A.G.-1 lastly submitted that the writ Court should not have allowed all the prayers of the writ petitioner rather it should have allowed some scope for the Corporation or the State Government to settle the terms of agreement for initiating a joint venture company in terms of the tender. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ respondent herein has pointed out that the stage for settlement of terms of agreement was over long ago because all the terms and conditions given to the writ petitioner were accepted by it through a letter dated 7th December, 2009 contained in Annexure-34 to the writ petition. 7. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Without interfering with the reliefs granted to the writ petitioner we make it clear that if some minor creases remain to be ironed out, the concerned parties will do so by a reasonable procedure and by agreement. 8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed but there shall be no order as to cost. 9. Before parting with the order we clarify that if respondent no.2 to the writ petition, the Consultant to the corporation has already fulfilled all its obligations then it will not be required do any thing further.