Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In the instant writ petition, the petitioner firm has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 30.03.2012 (Annex.-6) and further prayed that the petitioner firm may be awarded the tender contract in pursuance of the notification dated 23.02.2012 and fresh tender notice dated 31.03.2012 (Annex.-7) may be quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 invited tenders for collection of royalty with respect to mineral excavated by quarry licence holder in the revenue limits of Jodhpur district. The notification was published on 20.01.2012 in the news-paper Dainik Bhaskar. The petitioner firm applied in relation to the said tender for revenue limits of Jodhpur district. The tenders were submitted in sealed cover while enclosing the requisite demand draft for Rs.2,79,00,000/- and petitioner company submitted a sealed cover tender for Rs.27,87,87,878/- per annum. 3. The bids were opened on 24.02.2012, in which, the petitioner's bid was found to be highest and most competitive, therefore, the committee provisionally referred the same for sanction after selection by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities for finalization of contract; but, he was informed that there are certain dues against the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company, in which, his wife and sons are partners. According to the petitioner, he was not aware about such dues but, on enquiry about the said dues from the department, it has come to his knowledge that there are certain contracts being executed by firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company wherein total dues of Rs.24,25,102/- is outstanding, in which, his wife Smt. Pramod Kanwar, at one point of time, was partner. But, subsequently she had also ceased to be partner of the said firm through a retirementdeed dated 31.12.2011, therefore, obviously she had no concern with M/s M.S. Bhati & Company when the tender bid in question was filed along with affidavit. 4. It is also one of the facts narrated in the writ petition that after receiving such information the petitioner immediately informed the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company about the said outstanding and they contacted the respondent department and deposited amount of Rs.24,25,102/-. Upon deposit of the said amount the respondent department demanded further amount on account of interest upon the outstanding sums by creating fresh demand, therefore, total amount of Rs.27,90,000/-was deposited by M/s M.S. Bhati & Company prior to rejecting petitioner's bid on 30.03.2012. Upon deposit of the said amount the respondent department demanded further amount on account of interest upon the outstanding sums by creating fresh demand, therefore, total amount of Rs.27,90,000/-was deposited by M/s M.S. Bhati & Company prior to rejecting petitioner's bid on 30.03.2012. On depositing the outstanding by M/s M.S. Bhati & Company the respondent department No-Dues certificate was issued on 19.03.2012 which is on record as Annex.-4. 5. With a view to clarifying the factual aspect the petitioner filed a representation in which entire factual and legal position of the petitioner firm was clarified that wife of the petitioner had ceased to be partner of the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company vide retirement deed dated 31.12.2011, therefore, there was no outstanding against the petitioner and his family when he filed the tender bid and, in that view of the matter, there is no dues against the petitioner and his family members because his wife had ceased to be partner of M/s M.S. Bhati & Company under the dissolution of the partnership deed dated 09.04.2010. The said dissolution was filed along with the representation before the respondents and copy of retirement deed was also filed before the respondents to prove the fact that the petitioner's wife was not partner at the relevant time when the petitioner filed his tender in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents for granting royalty collection licence for the period commencing from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014. 6. After submitting the representation the petitioner approached the respondent department and enquired about the finalization of the tender; but, he was shocked to learn that respondent No.2 passed an order on 30.03.2012 whereby the tender bid filed by the petitioner was rejected despite there being no dues against the petitioner or his family members and invited fresh tenders for award of impugned contract in a hot haste manner and published notification on 01.04.2012 in news-paper Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur Edition. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order Annex.-6 dated 30.03.2012. 7. In this writ petition, Shri R.K. Soni, Addl. Government Counsel entered caveat on behalf of the respondents and filed his reply and rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order Annex.-6 dated 30.03.2012. 7. In this writ petition, Shri R.K. Soni, Addl. Government Counsel entered caveat on behalf of the respondents and filed his reply and rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. 8. In the reply filed by the respondent department, it is specifically pleaded that the affidavit filed by the petitioner firm in accordance with Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rules of 1986 was false because material concealment was there in the affidavit. In the affidavit, it is specifically stated that nodues are outstanding against him or his family members; but, in fact, there was dues of the department against firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company, in which, wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm was partner. The answering respondents were not knowing that there is any outstanding, as provided in the rules, therefore, the answering respondents bona fide proceeded with the process but, upon complaint, it was revealed that the petitioner has played fraud with the answering respondents by concealing the fact that there is departmental outstanding against him or his family members. The Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, upon receiving letter from the Mining Engineer, Sojat dated 13.03.2012, came to know that there was outstanding against M/s M.S. Bhati & Company, in which, wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm was partner. Therefore, the Director, Mines after receiving correct facts passed the impugned order in which there is no illegality. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 9. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate submits that the order impugned dated 30.03.2012 (Annex.-6) is totally illegal and unconstitutional because the petitioner firm was highest bidder, therefore, its case was provisionally recommended for sanction by the committee vide communication dated 02.03.2012; but, it has been illegally rejected on the ground that there was outstanding against the firm in which the petitioner's wife and his major sons were partners and in the affidavit filed by the petitioner this fact was not disclosed as required under Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rules of 1986. In this connection it is pointed out that wife of the petitioner was partner of the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company but on 09.04.2010 the partners of M/s M.S. Bhati & Company entered into mutual contract whereby wife of the petitioner Smt. Pramod Kanwar retired from the partnership and relinquished all her interest in the firm and, thereby, withdrew her name from the partnership firm. In the dissolution deed dated 09.04.2010, it was specifically mentioned that due to ill-health she is not able to carry out the partnership and affairs of the firm. 11. As per the mutual consent dated 09.04.2010 regarding business in the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company all the partners in the firm decided and agreed on the retirement of Smt. Pramod Kanwar and, for that purpose, later on, retirement deed was written on 31.12.2011. Copy of the retirement-deed was presented to Udyog Bhawan on 19.01.2012; meaning thereby, the day on which affidavit was filed by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 35 (vi-c) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, in which, there is requirement of filing affidavit under Rule 35 (vi)(c) and, on that date, the proprietor of the petitioner firm filed correct affidavit that there is no outstanding of the department against him or his family and while submitting representation dated 19.03.2012 this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents but the Director, Mines rejected the tender of the petitioner firm and issued direction to notify fresh applications vide order dated 30.03.2012. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited my attention towards the fact that even though the petitioner's wife ceases to be partner of M/s M.S. Bhati & Company the said firm deposited the entire outstanding on 16.03.2012 and 17.03.2012 and No-Dues certificate was also issued by the Mining Engineer on 19.03.2012; but, on hyper technical grounds the Director, Mines rejected the tender given by the petitioner's firm while exercising power under Rule 35 (12) of the Rules of 1986. 13. 13. According the petitioner, even if on 30.03.2012, the day on which the tender was rejected, there was no outstanding even against M/s M.S. Bhati & Company and fact of retirement of petitioner's wife Smt. Pramod Kanwar from partnership with effect from 31.12.2011 was brought to the notice of the respondent but all these facts are ignored and, in arbitrary manner, the Director, Mines rejected the tender bid vide Annex.-6 dated 30.03.2012 which is totally illegal. It is argued that as per definition of “family” under the Rules of 1986, in the term “family” husband, wife and their dependent children are included, therefore, the major sons of petitioner cannot be treated as members of family. According to petitioner, if any outstanding is due against the firm that cannot be treated to be outstanding against the partner who ceased to be partner under the retirement deed dated 31.12.2011, therefore, the reason given by the respondents for rejecting petitioner's tender is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the relief claimed in this writ petition may be allowed while quashing impugned order Annex.-6 dated 30.03.2012. 14. Per contra, it is argued by the counsel for the respondents that as per procedure laid down in Rule 35 of the Rules of 1986 the petitioner was required to file an affidavit in accordance with Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rules of 1986. The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with tender form it is stated that there is no dues outstanding of the department against the tenderer and his family members and the partners of the firm as provided under Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rules but, in fact, there was outstanding against M/s M.S. Bhati & Company in which wife of the petitioner Smt. Pramod Kanwar and major sons were partners and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner but the plea is taken that she retired from the partnership firm and, for that purpose, a retirement-deed was executed and submitted before the Udyog Bhawan on 31.12.2011 but, admittedly, the firm in which the petitioner's wife was partner there was outstanding of Rs.24,25,102/- which is deposited by that firm on 16.03.2012 and 17.03.2012 after provisional recommendation made by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur on 02.03.2012. Therefore, even if the amount is deposited by M/s M.S. Bhati & Company it cannot be said that affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the tender was correct. Therefore, even if the amount is deposited by M/s M.S. Bhati & Company it cannot be said that affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the tender was correct. Therefore, for violation of Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 the respondent authority exercised its power and cancelled the bid of the petitioner under Rule 35 (xii) of the Rules of 1986, in which, there is no illegality; more so, the respondents have acted in accordance with the provisions of the rules, therefore, no case for interference is made out. More so, it is a case of filing false affidavit by the petitioner and on this ground alone this writ petition may be dismissed. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in this case, it is not in dispute that bid of the petitioner was highest for the purpose of licence for collection of royalty in the revenue limits of Jodhpur district and his case was provisionally recommended by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. It is also not in dispute that all the requirement including filing affidavit in accordance with Rule 35(vi)(c) was made by the petitioner. The precise question which requires adjudication in this case is as follows : “Whether affidavit filed by the petitioner firm is violative of Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rules of 1986 and Department has righly rejected the tender for such violation ?” 16. Rule 35(vi)(c) of the Rules of 1986 of procedure for filing affidavit along with tender is as follows : “35(vi) Every tender shall be accompanied by : ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... (c) an affidavit stating that no dues of the Department are outstanding against the tenderer/all partners of the firm/all members of association of persons/all directors of the company or family members of the tenderer/ partners/ members of association of persons/ directors, as the case may be. Such affidavit should not be older than 15 days from the date of its submission.” 17. Such affidavit should not be older than 15 days from the date of its submission.” 17. It is true that wife of the petitioner Smt. Pramod Kanwar and his major sons are partners of the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company and, against that firm, an amount of Rs.24,25,102/- was due but much before passing rejection order dated 30.03.2012 a representation was filed by the petitioner on 19.03.2012 in which it is specifically clarified by him by producing documentary evidence about retirement-deed and the fact that the day on which the affidavit was filed by the petitioner, his wife Smt. Pramod Kanwar was not partner of the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company, therefore, if any outstanding was there against the firm that cannot be treated as outstanding against the partner who has already ceased to be partner under the retirement-deed dated 31.12.2011. 18. It is also informed that even though Smt. Pramod Kanwar ceases to be partner of the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company the said firm deposited Rs.27,90,000/-, the entire outstanding along with interest and, for the same, No-Dues certificate has been issued by the Mining Engineer, Sojat City (District Pali) on 19.03.2012. In the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, the Director, Mines accepted the fact of depositing entire dues and observed that two other children are partners of M/s M.S. Bhati & Company. The definition of “family” enumerated in Rule 3(xiii-b) of the Rules which reads as under : “ “Family” means husband, wife and their dependent children;” 19. In view of the above fact, the major sons of the petitioner cannot be treated as members of family of the proprietor of the petitioner firm because they are major and not dependent upon him. The fact with regard to retirement of the wife of the petitioner Smt. Pramod Kanwar from the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company under retirement deed dated 31.12.2011 was brought to the notice of the competent authority but petitioner's bid was rejected for the reason that wife and two major sons of the proprietor of the petitioner firm were partners in the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company. In the order dated 30.03.2012, following assertion has been made by the Mining Director for rejection of the petitioner's tender : ^^[kfu vfHk;Urk] lkStrflVh }kjk funs'kky; dks voxr djk;k x;k fd muds dk;kZy; ds ckdhnkj Jh ,e-,l- HkkVh ,.M dEiuh vFkok dEiuh ds Hkkxhnkj Jh dqynhi izrki flag iq= Jh egsUnz flag HkkVh] Jh Hkjr dqekj flag iq= Jh egsUnz flag HkkVh] Jherh izeksn daoj iRuh Jh egsUnz flag HkkVh fuoklh mEesn uxj ok;k eFkkfu;k ftyk tks/kiqj ds fo:) muds U;k;ky; esa jkf'k :i;k 24]25]102@& :i;s dh cdk;k olwyh dk izdj.k yfEcr gS] ftldh olwyh dh dk;Zokgh Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ds vUrxZr dh tk jgh gSA [kfu vfHk;Urk] tks/kiqj }kjk [kfu vfHk;Urk] lkStr flVh ds mä i= ds Øe esa funs'kky; dks iqu% Bsdk vLoh—fr gsrq izLrkfor fd;k x;kA mijksä ds i'pkr~ [kfu vfHk;Urk] lkStr flVh }kjk funs'kky; dks voxr djk;k x;k fd mä cdk;k jkf'k tek gks tkus ij muds }kjk cdk;k ugha gksus dk izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tk pqdk gSA Jh egsUnz flag HkkVh }kjk ,d izfrosnu fnukad 19-3-12 dks funs'kky; esa izLrqr djrs gq;s voxr djk;k fd mudh iRuh Jherh izeksn doj fnukad 9-4-2010 dks gh eSllZ HkkVh ,.M dEiuh dh Hkkxhnkjh QeZ ls lsok fuo`r gks pqdh gSaA eSllZ HkkVh ,.M dEiuh esa cps gq;s Hkkxhnkjh esa Jh ,e-,l- HkkVh ds 2 ckfyd iq= 'kkfey gSaA jktLFkku viz/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;ekoyh] 1986 ds fu;e 3¼ xiii-b ½ ds vuqlkj ifjokj esa ifr] iRuh ,oa vkfJr cPpksa dks gh lEefyr fd;k x;k gSA vr% loZJh nson'kjFk jk;YVht] izks- Jh egsUnz flag HkkVh iq= Jh [kq'kky flag HkkVh] fuoklh mEesnuxj] rgfly vksfl;ka] ftyk tks/kiqj ¼jkt-½ }kjk izLrqr fufonk dks jktLFkku vizk/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;ekoyh] 1986 ds fu;e 35¼ xii ½ ds rgr fuEu dkj.kksa ls vLoh—r dh tkrh gS%& 1- fufonknkrk }kjk fufonk izLrqr djus dh frfFk dks muds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa }kjk xfBr QeZ eSllZ ,e-,l- HkkVh ,.M dEiuh esa ¼ftlesa mudh iRuh Hkkxhnkj gS½ foHkkxh; cdk;k FkhA 2- fufonknkrk }kjk fufonk ds lkFk izLrqr 'kiFk i= esa rF;ksa dks Nqik;k tkdj xyr 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA** 20. Upon perusal of the above, it is revealed that on the one hand, it is accepted that wife of the petitioner Smt. Pramod Kanwar ceases to be partner of firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company but treated two major sons of the petitioner as partners of M/s M.S. Bhati & Company and while treating them as family members of the petitioner cancelled the bid of the petitioner vide the impugned order. In my opinion, once the fact of retirement of petitioner's wife Smt. Pramod Kanwar from the partnership is brought to the notice of the Mining Director which is taken into consideration, then, it cannot be said that false affidavit was filed by the proprietor of the petitioner firm while conceal-ing the fact of his wife being partner of firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company. 21. I have considered the reply filed by the respondents, so also, perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, although assertion is made that an information was given by the Mining Engineer, Sojat City that there is outstanding of Rs.24,25,102/- but it is further observed in the impugned order that the said amount has already been deposited, for which, no-dues certification has already issued; meaning thereby, the day on which the impugned order was passed there was no outstanding against M/s M.S. Bhati & Company, in which, wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm was alleged to be partner. It is also worthwhile to consider the fact that in the impugned order it is specifically observed that in the representation filed by Mr. M.S. Bhati, proprietor of the petitioner firm informed that Smt. Pramod Kanwar has already retired from the partnership firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company; but, it is observed that other two major sons of the proprietor of the petitioner firm are partners in the firm M/s M.S. Bhati & Company. 22. In my opinion, as per definition of “family” enumerated in the Rules of 1986, major sons cannot be treated as members of family and, admittedly, the fact of retirement from partnership of Smt. Pramod Kanwar, wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm with effect from 09.04.2010 was brought to the notice of the Director, Mines and he observed said fact in the order but rejected the bid only on the ground that this fact of outstanding was not disclosed in the affidavit. In my considered opinion, first of all, once wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm, deponent of the affidavit, ceased to be partner of firm prior to filing affidavit, then, if any outstanding of the firm was in existence that cannot be treated to be outstanding against wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm because much before filing of affidavit the wife of proprietor of the petitioner firm retired from partnership under retirement-deed. Therefore, rejection of the tender bid of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 30.03.2012 is not sustainable in law. 23. Further, as per definition of “family”, the major sons cannot be treated to be family members, therefore, on that count also, there was no occasion for the Mining Director to exercise power under Rule 35(12) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Therefore, order impugned is not sustainable in law. It is also worthwhile to observe that even if all facts are accepted, then, too, on 30.03.2012, the day on which rejection order was passed, there was no dues against the firm M/s. M.S. Bhati & Company. 24. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 30.03.2012 (Annex.-6), so also, fresh tender notification dated 31.03.2012 (Annex.-7) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the provisional recommendation made by the committee to award tender contract in favour of the petitioner firm as per its highest bid in accordance with the rules. 25. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.