JUDGMENT : 1. Leave is granted to submit supplementary affidavit to the writ petition, which is kept on record. 2. Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioner and also Mr. Siddique, learned counsel representing the State of West Bengal. 3. In ventilating the grievance of the writ petitioner Mr. Chatterjee argued that pursuant to the Auction notice dated 5th December, 2017 published for Sand Mining Blocks in several sites in the district of Burdwan, his client being interested for the site ‘Galsi II’ had participated in the bidding process. Submitted that his client became the highest bidder in the bidding process by offering Rs.50,02,000/-, which was above the official bidding price. Submitted further that although the writ petitioner became the highest bidder and although at the initial stage he had participated by depositing 10% of the bidding money and he was supposed to deposit 1/3rd of the balance after completion of the bidding process, but as because the authority became absolutely silent without allowing him to deposit, the writ petitioner on 4th January, 2018 submitted prayer for issuance of letter of intent addressing to the District Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman. The District Magistrate instead of issuance of letter of intent cancelled the Auction without assigning any reason, which gives rise to arbitrariness in violating the principle of natural justice. 4. In submitting the supplementary affidavit Mr. Chatterjee also ventilated that though the earlier Auction was cancelled without assigning any reason, meanwhile fresh E-Auction has been notified inviting tender on 11th January, 2018 for the self-same site by fixing date of Auction on 31st January, 2018. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that while the writ petitioner became the highest bidder in the bidding process, the authorities could not cancel the earlier Auction without assigning any reason and they could not go with further Auction, for which they have circulated new E-Auction notice and therefore, the writ petition should be allowed with the prayer as sought for. In support of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee invited attention to the provisions laid down in Rule 9 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016 and the case of State of Punjab –vs- Bandeep Singh & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 724. 5. Mr. In support of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee invited attention to the provisions laid down in Rule 9 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016 and the case of State of Punjab –vs- Bandeep Singh & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 724. 5. Mr. Siddique per contra inviting attention to the terms and conditions laid down in the notice of E-Auction, submitted that the writ petitioner along with other bidders while participated in the bidding process knowing fully well with the terms and conditions laid down therein, could not challenge either of those conditions laid down in that Auction notice. Submitted that it is within the domain of the authority, as to whether they would proceed further with the Auction for which notice was circulated or whether they would rescind or cancel for taking fresh steps or not and for which, according to him, reason must not be assigned. 6. Mr. Siddique by handing over some Auction I.D.s relating to some other sites including the present site, tried to impress upon the Court that in the disputed site only three bidders were available, which would be apparent from the I.D. put against the bidder’s name and therefore, three blocks were cancelled and the bidding process in respect of two blocks were accepted. 7. Mr. Siddique in support of his submission relied upon the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. –vs- North-East Frontier Railway & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 760. 8. Consulted Auction Rules (supra) and the cases cited at the Bar. It appears that after completion of the bidding process, Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 9 lays down that the successful bidder shall be declared by the District Committee. At the very outset the Court observes that it has not been mentioned in the Rule that the highest bidder shall have to be declared by the District Committee, rather, the qualifying term is “Successful Bidder”. It is, therefore obvious that the term “Successful Bidder” may not be necessarily the highest bidder or vice versa, though it is usually apparent. Be that as it may, the term “Successful Bidder” is construed to the estimation of the authority, obviously within the terms and conditions of the entire bidding process. 9. It is, therefore obvious that the term “Successful Bidder” may not be necessarily the highest bidder or vice versa, though it is usually apparent. Be that as it may, the term “Successful Bidder” is construed to the estimation of the authority, obviously within the terms and conditions of the entire bidding process. 9. Within the ambit of the writ, the petitioner however criticized rather challenged clause 13.2, which is “right of State Government/District Committee”, but within E-Auction notice Sub-Clause (7) of Clause 1 under the heading Important Information is set out: “1.7. The issue of this Bid Document does not imply that the State Government is bound to select a Bidder as Successful Bidder for the mineral block and the State Government/District Committee reserves the tight to reject all or any of the Bidders or bids without assigning any reason whatsoever.” 10. The aforesaid clause, therefore, indicates reservation of all rights with the District Committee to reject all or any of the Bidders or bids without assigning any reason whatsoever. 11. Since this is the first day and there is no opportunity to file affidavit-in-opposition by the State in the case, nonetheless, some documents have been handed over by Mr. Siddique to apprise the Court at least to take a view, as to how many participants had participated in the bidding process on 21st December, 2017 in respect of Sand Mining Block nos. 373, 374, 375, 376 and 377. Out of those five Sand Mining Blocks, Block no.374 is the disputed one, where only three bidders were the participants, that too with identical masked I.D. members. It has been given to understand that out of those Blocks, two other Blocks 376 and 377 were also cancelled by allowing only two blocks, namely Block nos. 372 and 375. It appears from the document appended to the writ petition as annexure P-7, save and except making the endorsement, “Auction cancelled”, no reason has been assigned. 12. From the case of State of Punjab –vs- Bandeep Singh & Ors. (supra), paragraphs 3 and 7, on which Mr. Chatterjee relied on, are set out: “3. Without conveying to the respondents the reasons for not accepting their bids, being the highest offer received in the course of the auction process, a decision was taken by the appellant to re-auction the said two properties. (supra), paragraphs 3 and 7, on which Mr. Chatterjee relied on, are set out: “3. Without conveying to the respondents the reasons for not accepting their bids, being the highest offer received in the course of the auction process, a decision was taken by the appellant to re-auction the said two properties. This was despite the fact that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. had recorded, on 15-6-2004, that the bids of the respondents were not only the highest, but were also higher than the reserve price. The noting of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in fact do not recommend that the offers should be rejected; instead it solicits acceptance/approval of the Government through its Director, Industries and Commerce. However, when the case was submitted to the Director, Industries and Commerce, he opined that a re-auction should be conducted, as the two subject bids were only marginally higher than the reserve price. Indubitably, the impugned order mentions instances where bids were not accepted because they were only marginally higher than the reserve price; but failing to give due weightage and consideration to those instances where similar bids had in fact been accepted.” “7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun –vs- State of U.P. However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to, it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. –vs- M & N 4 Publications Ltd., Tata Cellular –vs- Union of India, Air India Ltd. –vs- Cochin International Airport Ltd., B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. –vs- Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Jagdish Mondal –vs- State of Orissa.” 13. Relying on the above text, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the authority has the power to cancel any such bidding process, but there should not be any arbitrariness and if it is cancelled, reason is to be assigned. To counter such law formulated by the Supreme Court Mr. Siddique relied upon the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. –vs- North-East Frontier Railway & Ors. (supra), from where paragraphs 8 and 9 are also set out: “8. To counter such law formulated by the Supreme Court Mr. Siddique relied upon the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. –vs- North-East Frontier Railway & Ors. (supra), from where paragraphs 8 and 9 are also set out: “8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also, the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process. 9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. (See Meerut Development Authority –vs- Assn. of Management Studies and Air India Ltd. –vs- Cochin International Airport Ltd.)” 14. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. (See Meerut Development Authority –vs- Assn. of Management Studies and Air India Ltd. –vs- Cochin International Airport Ltd.)” 14. It is obvious that the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier (supra) decided by the Apex Court is the earlier decision. In the case of State of Punjab –vs- Bandeep Singh & Ors. (supra) the arbitrariness causing prejudice to the appellant was observed for non-assigning any reason. In between the observation of the Apex Court from the documents available on record it appears without any doubt that the writ petitioner like other bidders had participated in the bidding process, presumably being aware of the terms and conditions laid down in E-Auction notice and like all other block in the impugned block he had given some identical masked 10 numbers. I have already indicated above that under Rule 9 of the Auction Rules, though in general, the case of highest bidder is thought of by the authority, but the legislature in his own wisdom had interpreted the words, “successful bidder” instead of “highest bidder” in sub-rule (8) of Rule 9. 15. Now, from the document as prepared with regard to the bidders for the Sand Mining Block no. 374, it is apparent that only three bidders with different masked I.D. had participated in that bidding process. It is also obvious that though the writ petitioner had given just above the bidding value to show him as the highest bidder, the bidding process only with three bidders may not be sufficient. The authority did not mention in the cancellation-sheet, but the very feature apparent in the bidding process in respect of the disputed Block no. 374 to the estimation of this Court is in-built. 16. Apart from the same, when sub-clause (7) of clause 1 under the heading Important Information was published with E-Auction notice, the same shall be binding upon the bidders, including the writ petitioner, because knowing fully well those terms he had participated. 17. 374 to the estimation of this Court is in-built. 16. Apart from the same, when sub-clause (7) of clause 1 under the heading Important Information was published with E-Auction notice, the same shall be binding upon the bidders, including the writ petitioner, because knowing fully well those terms he had participated. 17. The question of arbitrariness causing prejudice or violation of natural justice could have been ascertained, if the authority over-riding the writ petitioner as the highest bidder had handed over the disputed sand mining block to same other, namely second or third etc by violating either of the terms of E-Auction notice. Rather from the document appended to the supplementary affidavit it is apparent that simultaneously with cancellation of the earlier Auction process, fresh auction has been tendered fixing on 31st January, 2018 with the date of fresh auction which is yet to reach last date of participation. It is needless to mention that if the writ petitioner is still interested, he may participate in the Auction process as notified afresh. In view of such action, the authority has to give exposure of fairness and impartiality keeping under consideration of earning sufficient revenue from the highest bidder, which would be expected to come by cancelling the earlier one, where there were only three participants. 18. In view of above, the Court does not find any reason to pass any interim order and simultaneously any further reason to keep such writ petition alive, specially when no lis remains pending in view of the observation made above, specially when the authority had processed with further E-Auction notice for the self-same site and being guided by the earlier case of Maa Binda Express Carrier (supra), which seems to me as pat on the point. 19. The instant writ petition thus is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. 20. Be it mentioned that though the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Probhat Bauri is dismissed on merit, but this shall not be treated as deficiency or drawbacks in his participation, if he chooses to do so in the fresh bidding process in respect of the disputed block, for which fresh notice under reference has been circulated. 21. No order as to costs. 22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.