Judgment :- 1. As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal together by a common order. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the auction notice dated 14.12.2007 vide Ref I.H.S./SICH/AOD/94 issued by the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to hand over the above said plots to the petitioners to enable them to commence and complete the construction of residential houses within a time frame. 3. Facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions would run thus: 3.1. M/s.PAN Electronics (India) Ltd., the petitioner in W.P.No.2515 of 2008, originally known as Kaveri Metallisation Techniques and Electronics Private Ltd., is a Company carrying on business of manufacture, processing and assembling of all kinds of electronic components required by Electronic, Electrical, Automobile and other Industries. Its sister Concerns C and N Ganges Metallising Pvt. Ltd. (presently known as Venlon Metallising Pvt. Ltd.) and Venlon Metacoat Pvt. Ltd., who are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2516 and 2517 of 2008, respectively, are functioning in the Industrial Area in SIPCOT Complex, Hosur, Phase I, in adjacent plots. 3.2. The petitioner Concerns have engaged number of workers and staff for its business activities. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (in short 'SIPCOT') has provided Housing Plots in SIPCOT Complex on long lease of 99 years by allotting lands for achieving its object of promotion and development of Industrial Complex. It has allotted such plots to the entrepreneurs, who are having Industrial units at Hosur Industrial Complex. The entrepreneur to whom plots are allotted should construct houses for its staff in the said plots. The petitioner Concerns made applications to the SIPCOT for allotment of Housing plots in the Industrial Complex at Hosur. The SIPCOT allotted six Housing Plots to the petitioner Concerns, as per SIPCOT's Order Ref. AD2/ICH/Indl. Housing/93 dated 29.03.1994. 3.3. A Memorandum of Lease Deed was entered into at Hosur on 10.04.1995 between the 1st respondent/SIPCOT through the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein for a period of 99 years with various terms and conditions. The SIPCOT allotted six Housing Plots to the petitioner Concerns, as per SIPCOT's Order Ref. AD2/ICH/Indl. Housing/93 dated 29.03.1994. 3.3. A Memorandum of Lease Deed was entered into at Hosur on 10.04.1995 between the 1st respondent/SIPCOT through the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein for a period of 99 years with various terms and conditions. The petitioner Concerns had on the date of lease deed, paid the entire lease sum of Rs.3,05,067.50, Rs.2,86,415.25 and Rs.3,02,775.00, totalling Rs.8,94,357.75 and a sum of Rs.100/-which is to be remitted as lease rent at the rate of Re.1/- per year for 98 years and Rs.2/- for the 99th year. 3.4. According to the petitioner Concerns, one of the conditions in the lease deed was that the allottee should put up house construction on the leased out lands within the time stipulated. The petitioners took possession of the said plots and took steps to put up a construction for their staff in the allotted area. However, due to unforeseen circumstances and the slump in the Industrial Market, the petitioners' profit margin came down heavily and they could not go ahead with construction like many others in the business circle. Hence, they sought time for constructing housing units. The SIPCOT, vide its letter Ref. D.II:ICM:M 30: 87 dated 11.08.2000 granted time upto 30.06.2001. The petitioners were unable to put up their construction in spite of serious efforts due to the market condition. On 21.05.2003, the SIPCOT, through its Project Officer (i/c) informed the petitioners that they have not complied with clause 19 of the lease deed and have not put up construction within 24 months and requested the petitioners to take up and complete the construction of residential buildings in the allotted plots within 6 months, i.e. on or before 20.11.2003, failing which further course of action will be taken. 3.5. The petitioner Concerns sent a letter to the SIPCOT stating that due to poor market conditions, the medium scale Industries like that of the petitioners are greatly affected and hence, they have no other option but to surrender the plots, despite the efforts taken to construct the residential building and requested to refund the amount paid towards the plot cost and also requested to explain the formalities for the same. The SIPCOT sent a deed of Surrender of Lease to be signed by the petitioners and they signed the same on 15.07.2004 and handed it to the 2nd respondent. Then, the petitioners realized that they should not have surrendered the plots. However, they were pressurized to hand over the plots. Thereafter, the petitioners requested the SIPCOT to hold on the same and not to register the same as they do not want to surrender, as their financial position has improved and that they were forced to give a letter of surrender earlier due to their market conditions and other reasons. 3.6. The petitioner Concernsimmediately addressed a letter to the Sub Registrar, M.G. Road, Hosur, requesting him not to entertain any request for registration of the surrender deed for cancellation of allotted plots. After discussion between the petitioners and SIPCOT Officers at Hosur, the petitioners requested that surrender of plots may not be proceeded with and all the documents regarding surrender may be returned. The petitioners also addressed a letter on 05.10.2004 to the Project Manager, SIPCOT, Hosur in this regard. Further, this was followed by a legal notice dated 04.11.2004 from the petitioners to the 2nd respondent requesting him to return the surrender proceeding documents and indemnity bond, etc, as the petitioners have withdrawn the surrender lease. In the said notice, the petitioners have pointed out that they have taken steps with promoters who have agreed for construction of houses on the plots leased to them and propose to start construction work at the earliest. 3.7. Pursuant to the above, the original documents of Surrender Deed in relation to PAN Electronics India Ltd. and Venlon Metacoat were returned and the documents of their sister Concern 'C and N Ganges Metallising' was to be returned shortly. The petitioners were under the bonafide belief that they could proceed with the construction. Surprisingly, the petitioners received a reply notice from the Assistant General Manager (L) SIPCOT, Chennai, Ref. Legal/EHCH/2005 dated 17.01.2005, wherein it is stated that the possession of plots are now with SIPCOT and the question of withdrawal of surrender proceedings does not arise and requested the allottee to register the surrender deed, so as to enable SIPCOT to refund the plot cost, failing which suo-moto cancellation deed would be executed by SIPCOT. 3.8. Legal/EHCH/2005 dated 17.01.2005, wherein it is stated that the possession of plots are now with SIPCOT and the question of withdrawal of surrender proceedings does not arise and requested the allottee to register the surrender deed, so as to enable SIPCOT to refund the plot cost, failing which suo-moto cancellation deed would be executed by SIPCOT. 3.8. The petitioners, vide their letter dated 10.02.2005 addressed to the 1st respondent requested him to withdraw the surrender proceedings and hand over the allotted plots for the sake of the staff of the group Companies. The petitioners also brought to the notice of the Chairman of SIPCOT that they have submitted the Engineer drawings and estimates to the local office of SIPCOT, i.e. the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2004 itself and had also approached the Banks for loan to construct houses on the above plots. The petitioners did not receive any reply or any rejection of their request for more than a year, but they proceeded to take efforts to put up a construction with a bonafide belief. 3.9. The petitioners were shocked and surprised when they received a letter dated 16.05.2006 from the 1st respondent, wherein the 1st respondent requested the petitioners to register the surrender deed, failing which SIPCOT will be constrained to execute the suo-motto cancellation deed for resumption of the above said plots. The petitioners would point out that the 1st respondent has referred to their letter dated 14.07.2003, but has conveniently failed to refer to the letters of withdrawal and the legal notice sent in the year 2004 and the letter dated 10.02.2005 addressed to the 1st respondent. Thereafter, nothing transpired from the side of the respondents. 3.10. Later, the petitioners came to understand from certain third parties that the 2nd respondent had issued 'Sale of House Plots tender cum Public auction' on 14.12.2007 in Tamil and English newspapers which appeared in the Tamil Daily Dhinathanthi, Salem edition on 23.12.2007. The petitioners were given to understand that the persons who wished to participate in the auction were given the details and particulars of plots in which, the plots that were allotted to the petitioners on lease were also included for sale. According to the petitioners, the sale of various plots took place but the same was not concluded and that no letter or order cancelling the allotment was issued to the petitioners by SIPCOT. According to the petitioners, the sale of various plots took place but the same was not concluded and that no letter or order cancelling the allotment was issued to the petitioners by SIPCOT. The petitioners have stated that the plots allotted to them for 99 year lease cannot be sold by SIPCOT without registration of the surrender deed and without cancellation of the allotment order made to them. Hence, having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Respondent/SIPCOT has filed counter affidavit and has stated as follows : (i) The respondent/SIPCOT is playing a key role in the industrialization of the State by establishing Industrial complexes/Parks/Growth Centres at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu. Lands are acquired, laid out and allotted to various entrepreneurs for establishment of the industry, which will develop the economy of the State. In SIPCOT Industrial Complex at Hosur, the need for housing was felt nearby the industrial area and as such, Hosur Industrial Executive Housing Colony was formulated with 204 housing plots, in which 106 numbers are A-type plots and remaining 98 numbers are B-type plots. During 1994, 53 numbers of A-type plots and 22 numbers of B-type plots were allotted to the units on 99-year lease. Out of 53 numbers of A-type, SIPCOT had allotted 18 numbers of A-type housing plots to M/s.PAN Electronics Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Jumna Coating Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Venlon Metacoat Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s.C & N Ganges Metallising Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Venlon Metalising Pvt. Ltd.). (ii) As per conditions Nos. 3(vi) & (viii) of the Allotment Order and 15 & 19 of the Lease Deed dated 10.04.1995, the petitioners will have to commence construction of buildings within 12 months and complete within 24 months from the date of Allotment Order and failure of the same will entail cancellation of Allotment Order and forfeiture of initial deposit/EMD paid for the extent. As per the said terms and conditions, the petitioners have not commenced construction even after 20 months after taking possession of the Plot. 15 days Show Cause Notice was issued on 16.09.1997. As the petitioner Concerns had sent a representation on 30.09.1997 requesting to grant extension of time for six months, the same has been considered and granted extension of time for three months to commence the construction vide letter dated 19.12.1997. 15 days Show Cause Notice was issued on 16.09.1997. As the petitioner Concerns had sent a representation on 30.09.1997 requesting to grant extension of time for six months, the same has been considered and granted extension of time for three months to commence the construction vide letter dated 19.12.1997. Subsequently, some of the allottees had represented for granting extension of time for commencement of construction including the petitioner Concerns. After examining their request, they were granted extension of time upto 31.07.1999 for completion of construction of house in the above plots. Though the petitioner had not commenced construction activities, they had been given extension of time up to 30.06.2001 and further extended up to 20.11.2003 to complete the construction vide letter dated 21.05.2003. (iii) On receipt of the above letter, the petitioner Concerns through the letter dated 04.06.2003 had surrendered the plots due to poor market condition, heavy competition, non-availability of working capital and requested to refund the plot cost. After considering the petitioners' request, the petitioners were informed to contact the project Manager with regard to handing over the physical possession of the plot and for execution/registration of Surrender Deed vide letter dated 23.06.2003, 09.07.2003 and 15.07.2003. The petitioners had handed over the physical possession of the plots on 15.07.2004 and the Deed of Surrender was executed by the petitioners on 15.07.2004, but the same was not registered for the reason that the Registration Department had charged exorbitant stamp duty and that the petitioners do not have sufficient funds to bear the same. (iv) Subsequently, the petitioner, by their letter dated 05.10.2004 had withdrawn the surrender proposal and requested SIPCOT to return the Lease Deed documents. But, their request had not been complied. In the meantime, SIPCOT had received a notice from the petitioners' counsel, addressed to the Project Manager, Hosur informing that they are withdrawing their surrender proposal and to return all the signed documents such as Indemnity Bond, Advance Receipt, Surrender Deed, etc. within 7 days failing which his clients will be constrained to take legal proceedings against SIPCOT. By reply dated 17.01.2005, the respondent informed the counsel to advise his clients to register the surrender deed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reply, failing which suo motu cancellation deed would be executed by SIPCOT at the petitioners' cost. within 7 days failing which his clients will be constrained to take legal proceedings against SIPCOT. By reply dated 17.01.2005, the respondent informed the counsel to advise his clients to register the surrender deed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reply, failing which suo motu cancellation deed would be executed by SIPCOT at the petitioners' cost. (v) Since the physical possession of the plots rest with SIPCOT from 15.07.2004 and the deed of surrender was also executed (though not registered) since the petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of allotment order/lease deed, the petitioners have been informed vide letter dated 16.05.2006 that suo motto cancellation deed would be executed. Since the petitioners have failed to register the surrender deed even after 15 days time or even sent any reply, the 2nd respondent was informed to execute suo motto cancellation deed vide letter dated 25.10.2006. The deed of cancellation was executed on 16.11.2006 and registered at Sub-Registrar's Office, Hosur vide Doc.No.15178/06, 15179/06 and 15177/06 in respect of PAN Electronics Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Venlon Metacoat Pvt. Ltd. and Venlon Metalising Pvt. Ltd., respectively. (vi) There is a good demand for housing plots at Hosur and it has been decided to allot 54 nos. of 'A' and 'B' type vacant plots including the plots which was surrendered by some allottees through tender-cum-public auction. Accordingly, wide publicity was made and the 2nd respondent had released an advertisement for sale of housing plots through tender-cum-public auction in the Dailies viz. in English, New Indian Express, Bangalore Edition on 23.12.2007 and in Media for a period of one month and in Tamil Dailies in Dhinamalar, Malaimalar and public auction was conducted from 07.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. After completion of tender-cum-public auction, the 2nd respondent has forwarded the statement showing the highest bid amount offered in the tender/bid. The details of tender/bid value in respect of the 18 plots allotted to the petitioner Companies are detailed as follows: (vii) With respect to the allegations made by the petitioner Concerns, the respondent/SIPCOT would state that the physical possession of 18 nos. of 'A' type plots allotted to the petitioners was handed over to SIPCOT on 15.07.2004 and the petitioners had executed the surrender deed on 15.07.2004, but the same had been kept pending for registration by the petitioners due to exorbitant stamp duty. of 'A' type plots allotted to the petitioners was handed over to SIPCOT on 15.07.2004 and the petitioners had executed the surrender deed on 15.07.2004, but the same had been kept pending for registration by the petitioners due to exorbitant stamp duty. Subsequently, SIPCOT, in its letter dated 16.05.2006 had informed to surrender the plots within 15 days from the date of the letter and also informed that in case of failure, SIPCOT will execute suo motto cancellation deed for resumption of the plots. Thereafter, the allottees had not approached either for execution of surrender deed or made any representation to SIPCOT. Therefore, only after giving due notice to the allottees, suo motto cancellation deed has been executed on 16.11.2006. Inasmuch as the physical possession of the plot is with SIPCOT and Cancellation Deed was executed after observing the formalities, the advertisement was released for sale of housing plots inclusive of above 18 nos. of 'A' type. Moreover, the plot cost at the time of allotment to the petitioner Concerns in the year 1994 was Rs.165/- per sq. ft., whereas the bid fetched for the housing plots now averagely works out to Rs.300/-sq. mt. for 'A' type housing plots. According to the respondent, the petitioner, after coming to know of the high bid rate fetched in the auction, had an afterthought to grab the property and has challenged the confirmation of auction sale. Under these circumstances, the respondent/SIPCOT prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the action of SIPCOT in trying to sell the plots to any person/public is against the basic object of the SIPCOT to develop industries and industrial Concerns. He would submit that the petitioners undoubtedly accepted to surrender the plots, but immediately retracted the same and requested the SIPCOT not to register the surrender deed and return the documents. It is his contention that when the SIPCOT has chosen to return the documents in the year 2004, it is not proper on their part to state that it has suo moto registered the Cancellation Deed on 16.11.2006 bring the properties for auction in December 2007. 6. On the other hand, Mr.M.Devaraj, learned counsel for the respondent/SIPCOT would submit that after the release of advertisement for sale of housing plots through tender-cum-public auction in the Dailies, public auction was conducted from 07.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. 6. On the other hand, Mr.M.Devaraj, learned counsel for the respondent/SIPCOT would submit that after the release of advertisement for sale of housing plots through tender-cum-public auction in the Dailies, public auction was conducted from 07.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. Out of the 18 plots earlier allotted to the petitioner Concerns, all the plots have been bidden and the EMD has been deposited in respect of the plots. The highest bidders have been informed about the pendency of the case and till such time, the auction cannot be confirmed in their favour till the outcome of the case. The highest bidders except for one plot have not withdrawn the EMD deposited at the time of auction and are waiting for the outcome of the case. Hence, the suggestion of giving 50% of the plots to the petitioner Concerns is not feasible in view of the interest shown by the highest bidders. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner Companies failed to construct houses during the eight year period (1996 to 2004) allotted to them and conveyed their inability to construct and surrendered the plots, after holding them for 8 years. Hence, they do not deserve for any special concession at this stage. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 8. Originally, the plots in question, which were 18 in number, were allotted to the petitioners by the respondents vide the lease deeds, dated 10.04.1995, 17.04.1995 and 04.04.1996 for development of the same by construction of houses. 9. As per conditions Nos. 3(vi) & (viii) of the Allotment Order, dated 29.03.1994, and 15 & 19 of the Lease Deed dated 10.04.1995, the petitioners had to commence construction of buildings within 12 months and complete within 24 months from the date of Allotment Order. In this connection, it is very pertinent to state that the date of allotment order is 29.03.1994, as per which the commencement of construction should be by 28.03.1995 and completion by 28.03.1996 and failure of the same would entail cancellation of Allotment Order and forfeiture of initial deposit/EMD paid. The stand of the petitioners is that due to the slump in the industrial market, they could not go ahead with the construction. A Show Cause Notice was also issued to the petitioners on 16.09.1997. The stand of the petitioners is that due to the slump in the industrial market, they could not go ahead with the construction. A Show Cause Notice was also issued to the petitioners on 16.09.1997. As the petitioners had sent a representation on 30.09.1997 requesting to grant extension of time for six months, the same was considered and three months time was granted by the respondents vide letter dated 19.12.1997 to commence the construction. Subsequently also, the petitioners requested for some more time and the time up to 31.07.1999 was granted for completion of the construction. When they sought some more time for constructing housing units, the respondents granted time up to 30.06.2001, which was more than five years. Even then, the petitioners were unable to put up the construction. Therefore, on 21.05.2003, the Project Officer/second respondent sent a notice to the petitioners, informing that they had not complied with clause 19 of the lease deed in putting up the construction within 24 months and requested the petitioners to take up and complete the construction of residential buildings in the allotted plots within 6 months, i.e. on or before 20.11.2003, failing which further course of action would be taken. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners, by their letter dated 04.06.2003, expressed their willingness to surrender the plots because of their inability for construction of houses and requested for refund of the amount. Accordingly, on 15.07.2004, the deeds of Surrender of Lease were executed by the petitioners and handed over to the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners did a u-turn and requested the respondent to hold on the same and not to register the surrender deed. Though the petitioners had handed over the physical possession of the plots and the Deeds of Surrender were executed by the petitioners on 15.07.2004, it is seen that the same were not registered for the reason that the Registration Department had charged exorbitant stamp duty and that the petitioners did not have sufficient funds to bear the same. By a letter dated 17.01.2005, the respondent informed the petitioners to register the surrender deeds within 15 days, failing which suo motu cancellation deeds would be executed by SIPCOT at the cost of the petitioners. Since the petitioners had failed to register the surrender deeds, the second respondent was informed to execute suo motto cancellation deeds vide letter dated 25.10.2006. By a letter dated 17.01.2005, the respondent informed the petitioners to register the surrender deeds within 15 days, failing which suo motu cancellation deeds would be executed by SIPCOT at the cost of the petitioners. Since the petitioners had failed to register the surrender deeds, the second respondent was informed to execute suo motto cancellation deeds vide letter dated 25.10.2006. Accordingly, the deeds of cancellation were executed on 16.11.2006 and registered at Sub-Registrar's Office, Hosur vide Doc.No.15178/06, 15179/06 and 15177/06 in respect of PAN Electronics Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Venlon Metacoat Pvt. Ltd. and Venlon Metalising Pvt. Ltd., respectively. 10. As there was a good demand for housing plots at Hosur, it was decided by the respondents to allot 54 nos. of 'A' and 'B' type vacant plots including the plots which were surrendered by some allottees through tender-cum-public auction. Hence, the second respondent had released an advertisement for sale of housing plots through tender-cum-public auction in the dailies viz., The New Indian Express, Bangalore edition, dated 23.12.2007, Dhinathanthi, Salem edition, dated 23.12.2007, and Dhinamalar, Chennai edition, dated 23.12.2007, and public auction was conducted from 07.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. After completion of tender-cum-public auction, the second respondent forwarded a statement to the first respondent, indicating the highest bid amounts offered in the tender/bid. From this, it would be clear that the petitioners, after coming to know of the highest bid amounts fetched in the auction, as an afterthought to grab the property, have challenged the auction sale. It is also known that the highest bidders except for one plot have not withdrawn the EMD deposited at the time of auction and are waiting for the outcome of the case. Since the petitioners have failed to construct houses during the ten year period from 1994 to 2004 and conveyed their inability to construct and surrendered the plots, after holding them for more than a decade, in my considered opinion, they do not deserve for any special concession at this stage. 11. In matters of tenders, the duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : Whether the Tender Inviting Authority – 1. exceeded its powers, 2. committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers ? Its concern should be : Whether the Tender Inviting Authority – 1. exceeded its powers, 2. committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers ? Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review are: (i) Illegality; (ii) Irrationality; and (iii) Procedural impropriety. Further, the principles deducible relating to scope of judicial review of administrative decisions and exercise of contractual powers by government bodies are : (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. The above are the principles laid down by a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. The above are the principles laid down by a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . In the very same judgment, the power of Judicial Review has been examined by the Supreme Court,wherein it has been held that if the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration of error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. Restraint under judicial review is always limited to this Court and it has to be invoked rarely and hesitantly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Courts are always hesitant to interfere with the administrative policy decision and in rarest of rare occasions, if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the Courts can interfere. 12. In the instant case, the action of the respondents in their auction notice vide Ref. No. I.H.S./ SICH/AOD/94, dated 14.12.2007, calling for applicants to participate in the public auction for sale of plots after following the procedure as per rules, in the absence of any arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides or actuation by bias, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. At this moment, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has consistently pleaded before this Court that the plot to which EMD was withdrawn by the bidder may be allotted to the petitioners. In view of the said submission, which is also a fact, it is open for the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondents for allocation of that plot, in which event, it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. 13. With the above observation, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.2 of 2008 are also dismissed.