JUDGMENT : 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved and the relief claimed is identical. 2. For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8486/2012. 3. The prayer in the present writ petition is to set aside the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Collector, Bikaner vide which the Collector, Bikaner refused to confirm the allotment and the applications were rejected. In pursuance to the public notice issued by the allotting authority and Sub Divisional Officer, applications for allotment were received for auction of the land in Poogal area to be held on 06.02.2009 and on 17.02.2009 in Khajuwala area. The date for the auction proceedings was suddenly changed to be held on 24.02.2009 vide public notice dated 17.02.2009. Since the petitioner had offered the maximum price, he was allotted the land in question. However, allotment was yet to be confirmed. Meanwhile, before any allotment could be confirmed, the Collector, Bikaner rejected the applications vide the impugned order dated 31.5.2011. Various writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the District Collector. 4. While praying for setting aside the said order, twofold arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, the auction of the area Poogal was confirmed whereas the auction of the area Khajuwala has been canceled which is discriminatory. Secondly, the report on the basis of which the auction has been canceled, was not fair and the petitioners cannot be punished for the mistake committed in the entry of the register. 5. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the auction proceedings of the land which fell in the periphery of Tehsil Poogal were completed on the date already fixed and stood finalised whereas the allotment proceedings of the land which fell in the periphery of Tehsil Khajuwala could not be completed due to one or more reasons and there were irregularities found from the very beginning. The public notice dated 17.02.2009 was not published in the newspaper as per rules and nor pasted anywhere at conspicuous places. There was no information with respect to the extension of the date for allotment proceedings. The comparative chart of the various applicants were never prepared. The public notice dated 17.02.2009 was not published in the newspaper as per rules and nor pasted anywhere at conspicuous places. There was no information with respect to the extension of the date for allotment proceedings. The comparative chart of the various applicants were never prepared. Accordingly, the allotment proceedings were ordered to be stopped finally after inquiring into the matter by the Committee constituted by the district collector. 6. Heard. 7. Thus, the only question that emerges before this Court is as to whether the petitioners have any right on account of their participating in the auction proceedings and whether they have any right before the bid was finally confirmed. 8. It is otherwise a settled principles of law that a person has no right to claim simply because he has either participated in the tender process and simply on account of being the highest bidder. The Division Bench of this Court in almost identical situation in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.742/2014 & other connected matters decided on 24.09.2014 dismissed the various special appeals preferred against the order of Single Bench wherein the question framed was as to whether “appellants bidders on account of their participation in the auction process & whether there is any vested right conferred upon the appellants bidder or it amounts to a concluded contract merely being the highest bidder & despositing 15% of the bid amount in absence of approval by the competent authority.” 9. The special appeals were dismissed after recording a finding that the appellants had not acquired any right in their favour simply because they are the highest bidders. The special appeals were dismissed after recording a finding that the appellants had not acquired any right in their favour simply because they are the highest bidders. The Division Bench has observed as under:- “In the instant case as well the appellants had not acquired any right in their favour and merely because they are the highest bidders and deposited 15% of the bid with the Board and that being subject to acceptance of the competent authority and there is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted and that apart the (17) learned Single Judge also perused & examined the records and observed that in few cases MSP was determined without proper consideration or the rate was inadequate and it was not the case of the appellants that different standards have been adopted or there was any element of selectivity in decision making process of the competent authority for non-acceptance of the bid offered by the highest bidder and the primary reason as observed was that the bid of the appellants could not fetch price of the plot after it being due compared with the price fetched of the plot in the nearby areas in few cases and in some of the cases MSP was found to be faulty and in totality the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board was not satisfied with the bid which was offered by the so called alleged highest bidder and accordingly it was proposed to initiate the auction after due determination of MSP afresh and in our considered view there is sufficient material on record which could justify the decision making process adopted by the respondent in taking its final decision for non-acceptance of the bid offered by the highest bidder.” 10. In the present case, the detailed enquiry report was submitted pointing out the shocking irregularities in the whole process. In fact, the copy of the publication as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner was defective, inasmuch as the detail of the land which was required to be allotted and other relevant details were not mentioned in the said publication. In fact, the copy of the publication as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner was defective, inasmuch as the detail of the land which was required to be allotted and other relevant details were not mentioned in the said publication. There was no publication of the change of date whereas it is mandatory under Rule 18(1) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal colony Area) Rules, 1975 that the Allotting Authority shall cause a public notice to be issued in Form XIII giving full details of the land to be sold including number of chak, number of the square and killa and the date and place of auction. Thus, the publication, if any, was in total violation of this rule which is mandatory. The publication was not in any of the running newspaper i.e. neither in the Rajasthan Patrika nor in the Dainik Bhaskar but was published in some local newspaper Dainik Yugprakash and brief news was given in Seema Sandesh. No information with respect to the opening of the bids was given. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order dated 31.5.2011 cancelling the allotment/applications as the case may be. 11. Moreover, Section 20(g) of the rules of 1975 gives ample power to the State Government to reject any bid without assigning any reason. Section 20(g) reads as under:- “Section 20(g): The State Government in the Colonization Department or the Colonization Commissioner, as the case may be, reserves the right to reject any bid without assigning any reason therefor and to withdraw any lot or lots from [sealed bid] at any time without assigning any reasons: Provided that in case of rejection of any bid the Colonisation Commissioner shall also pass an order for the refund of [20%] of the purchase price deposited under clause (h) and any other amount which might have been deposited by the bidder towards payment of the purchase price.” 12. Thus, there being no concluded contract between the parties and there being no allegation that the decision was in any manner arbitrary or against the public interest, the State or any other authority is not bound to accept the highest tender/offer or bid. 13. Thus, there being no concluded contract between the parties and there being no allegation that the decision was in any manner arbitrary or against the public interest, the State or any other authority is not bound to accept the highest tender/offer or bid. 13. This view is also strengthened by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. Vs. G.S. Investments and Anr. :: JT 2006(9)SC 612 wherein it was held that the Courts should exercise its power with great care and caution even if some defect was found in ultimate decision resulting in cancellation of auction and further held that so long an order regarding final acceptance of bid had not been passed, highest bidder acquired no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and auction proceedings could always be canceled. 14. There is another way of looking at it. Except one writ petition No.8486/2012 which was filed in the year 2012 and that too after one year of the cancellation of the allotment, all other writ petitions have been filed between the period 2014-2017 and thus after a long delay of the order of cancellation dated 31.5.2011. 15. One of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cancellation was without jurisdiction having been passed by an appropriate authority which did not have the powers to do so and relied on Section 6 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. Section 6 reads as under:- “6. Investing Colonisation Officers with powers of Revenue Courts.- the State Government may, by order published in the [Official Gazette], invest any officer appointed for colonisation of the colony with all or any of the powers of a Revenue Court or officer, other than the Board of Revenue, for the purpose of trying and hearing all or any specified classes of [applications], suits or appeals arising in a colony.” 16. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, only a Colonisation Officer can be given the powers of a revenue Court but no officer of revenue Court can be given the powers for the purpose of colonisation of the colony under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. In the present case, SDO passed the order being a revenue officer which was not permissible. 17. In the present case, SDO passed the order being a revenue officer which was not permissible. 17. The said argument cannot be sustained in view of definition of Collector in terms of Section 2(1) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. Section 2(i) reads as under:- “2(i) “Collector” means the Collector of the district and includes- (a) any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of the Collector under this Act.” In pursuance to the same, a Notification was duly issued. The same is reproduced as under:- “64. [Noti. No. P-4(7) UPP/06, dated 17.11.2006 – Raj. Gaz., Exty., Pt. IV-C (II), dated 21.11.2006, p.239(3)] : 2007 RSCS/Pt.II/P.49/H.48. ,lŒ vksŒ 256 & jktLFkku mifuos'ku vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼lu~ 1954 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la[;k 27½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼1½ ds mi[k.M ¼d½ }kjk ÁnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj blds }kjk fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks muds lEeq[k vafdr Áknsf'kd vf/kdkfjrk ds {ks= esa mDr vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr dysDVj ls leLr ÑR;ksa dk ikyu djus gsrq ,oa leLr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djus gsrq ,rn~}kjk fu;qDr djrh gS% Ø- la- vf/kdkjh dk uke mifuos'ku rglhy dh Áknsf'kd vf/kdkfjrk lekIr {ks=] ftlds fy, vf/kÑr fd;k x;k gS 1- mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] [kktqokyk mifuos'ku rglhy iwxy dk ÁFke pj.k dk {ks= 18. Thus, vide the above notification dated 17.11.2006, specific powers were vested with the Sub Divisional Officer, Khajuwala to execute the power of collector for the purpose of Colonisation of the respective area. Accordingly, the officer was well within the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. 19. In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. In case, any draft deposited by the petitioner was encashed by the respondent-department, the same shall be returned and in case any amount was deposited in cash, the same too shall be returned forthwith.