Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 588 (RAJ)

Vinayak Royalties v. State of Rajasthan

2021-03-10

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2021
ORDER : The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner-firm challenging Notice Inviting Bid (ERCC vii)/22/942 dated 23.05.2020 inviting bids for royalty/excess royalty collection contract along with District Mineral Foundation Trust (in short ‘DMFT’) and other charges from the mining leases mentioned at S.No.4, 5, 7 & 8. The petitioner-firm also prays for direction to be issued for inviting fresh e-auction notice in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Rules of 2017’). 2. The brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that an e-auction notice dated 23.05.2020 was issued inviting bids for royalty/excess royalty collection contract along with DMFT and other charges from the mining leases situated in various Districts for a period till 31.03.2022. The petitioner-firm has a grievance with regard to the four mining areas/leases in revenue boundaries of the following Districts:- a) Tehsil Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar for mineral masonry stone. The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.33,28,73,300/-. b) Tehsils Bilada, Peepad and Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur for mineral limestone (minor mineral). The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.24,19,25,600/-. c) Tehsil and District Jodhpur for mineral sandstone. The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.68,73,52,100/-. d) Village Balesar Sata, Koi Jhodha Tehsil Balesar and villae Khirja Bhoja Sindha and Khirja Fatehsingh of Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur for mineral masonry stone and sandstone. The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.27,11,33,300/-. 3. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that date for submission of the security deposit by the bidder was 03.06.2020 and the date for submitting the online bid was 04.06.2020. The petitioner-firm has further pleaded that Chapter VI of the Rules of 2017 provides for grant of royalty or excess royalty collection contracts and under Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2017, procedure for e-auction has been prescribed. The petitioner-firm has submitted that as per the said Rule, the Notice Inviting Bids (for short ‘NIB’) was required to be published at least thirty days from the date fixed for submission of bids and thirty days period is counted from the date of publication of the NIB on the official website of the Department or on the website of the agency, appointed for auction. 4. 4. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that in NIB issued on 23.05.2020, the date fixed for submission of bid was 04.06.2020 i.e. before expiry of the period of thirty days, as mentioned under the Rules and as such, the aforesaid violation, has occasioned a restricted participation and considering the uncertain conditions of COVID-19, the respondents ought to have granted adequate time and publicity to maximize the participation. The non-participation and violation of Rules of 2017 has resulted into prejudice to the public revenue. 5. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that for all the four revenue Districts, against which the petitioner-firm has grievance, limited number of contractors participated in the bidding process and if the technically qualified bidders are less than two, then no technically qualified bidder was to be considered as qualified bidder and the auction process is required to be annulled. The petitioner-firm has made a mention that for the revenue District Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar there were only two contractors who participated in the bidding process and similarly, for the revenue District Jodhpur, again there were only two contractors. 6. The petitioner-firm has further pleaded that for two other contracts i.e. for Tehsil Bilada, Peepad and Bhopalgarh and Tehsil Balesar and Shergarh, there were only three and four contractors including petitioner-firm and in fact one of the contractors was a dummy firm and even the prices were quoted just Rs.1 or 2 Lakhs above the reserve price. 7. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that when they came to know about the fact that the said contractors have formed a cartel and participated in the NIB, a letter is said to be written immediately by them on 06.06.2020 to the Minister, Mines and Petroleum, Government of Rajasthan complaining about the illegal cartel formed by the contractors to cause revenue loss to the State Government. The petitioner-firm is also said to have made a complaint to the respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur on the same day. 8. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that on 10.06.2020 again a letter was written by them informing that the petitioner-firm was not able to participate in the bidding process due to COVID-19 and as such, for ERCC Contract, for revenue Tehsil Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar, the petitioner-firm was ready to submit its offer of Rs.35,31,63,300/-, which was more than Rs.2 Crores more than the reserve price fixed by the Department. The petitioner-firm is also said to have submitted the security amount by a Demand Draft of Rs.1 Crore and it was informed to the State Government that at least revenue of Rs.2 Crores annually could be augmented and as such, the request was made to invite fresh NIB to fetch maximum revenue for the State Exchequer. 9. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that another letter was written by them on 11.06.2020, along with an affidavit in the name of its partner, informing the State Government to re-invite fresh tender and further preparedness of the petitioner-firm to get the security deposited. 10. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that on the complaint submitted by them, the respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Mines and Geology Department, had drawn a notesheet dated 16.06.2020, wherein the fact of offering higher price by the petitioner was mentioned and further it was mentioned that fresh tender could be invited to gain maximum revenue for the State Government by cancelling the earlier NIB. The petitioner-firm has quoted the notesheet dated 16.06.2020 at page No.14 of the writ petition. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that in-spite of recommendation by the Director, his recommendation was withheld by the Minister concerned and the same was not given effect to without any justification. 11. The petitioner-firm has further pleaded that Section 11 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Act of 2012’) provides for the code of integrity for procuring entity and bidder and there is a complete prohibition of any kind of collusion, bid-rigging or anti-competitive behaviour which impairs the transparency, fairness and progress of the procurement process. The petitioner-firm raised a grievance that under Section 26 of the Act of 2012, the procuring entity has the power to cancel the tender process, prior to the acceptance of the successful bid and in the present case, the competent authority i.e. the Director, Mines and Geology Department who has been delegated with full powers to grant or reject the bid, since had already recommended to cancel the NIB and re-invite the bids, fresh NIB ought to have been issued for ensuring maximum generation of revenue for the State Government and the State Government ought to have immediately taken steps, as per the opinion of the Director, Mines and Geology Department. 12. Counsel for the petitioner-firm has made following submissions:- 12A. 12. Counsel for the petitioner-firm has made following submissions:- 12A. As per Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2017, procedure for e-auction has been breached by the respondents, as notice of thirty days was mandatory. 12B. The respondent-Department had earlier issued NIB dated 03.02.2020 inviting online applications on 06.03.2020 and no bids were received in pursuance of the said NIB. The respondent-Department issued second NIB dated 11.03.2020 and this time also no bids were received upto 21.03.2020 and third NIB was issued on 23.03.2020 and the same was cancelled on 31.03.2020. The NIB in question dated 23.05.2020 ought to have given at least notice of thirty days, as it was not a case of cancellation of earlier bid but it was a fresh tender. 12C. The respondent-Department ought to have considered revenue as foremost objective and apparently, there was a loss to the State Exchequer, the fresh NIB ought to have been issued. 12D. The formation of cartel vitiates the entire bidding process and as per the provisions contained in the Act of 2012 and only course open was to cancel the NIB dated 23.05.2020. 12E. Schedule-VI appended to the Rules of 2017, which deals with the delegation of powers, provides that Director, Mines and Geology Department will have full power under Rule 37 and intervention by any authority is not warranted under the Rules of 2017 and as such, opinion of the Director, Mines and Geology Department ought to have prevailed. 13. The respondents-State has filed reply to the writ petition and they have raised following preliminary objections:- 13A. The petitioner-firm has challenged the NIB dated 23.05.2020 but it has not participated in the auction process and as such, the petitioner-firm does not have locus to challenge the auction process/NIB. 13B. The sanction orders were issued by the Director, Mines and Geology Department in favour of the successful bidders and agreements were also executed thereof, however, the petitioner-firm did not challenge the sanction orders issued to the respective successful bidders. 13C. The petitioner-firm has not impleaded the successful contractors as party respondents in the writ petition and as such, on account of non-joinder of necessary party, the writ petition is not required to be entertained. 13D. 13C. The petitioner-firm has not impleaded the successful contractors as party respondents in the writ petition and as such, on account of non-joinder of necessary party, the writ petition is not required to be entertained. 13D. The petitioner-firm has approached this Court as per its convenience and the three revenue areas fall in the Jodhpur jurisdiction of this Court, as they are located in the District Jodhpur and as such, for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 13E. The auction process was conducted by M/s.MSTC Limited, Government of India Enterprise and e-auction was open and transparent and the successful bidder was declared by the system and its communication was also received through email by the respondent-Department and as such, the respondent-Department does not have any interference in the e-auction in any manner. 13F. The Finance Department has issued a Notification dated 04.01.2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 of the Act of 2012 exempting the procurement of service for royalty collection contract and excess royalty collection contract by the Mines and Geology Department and as such, there is no application of the provisions of the Act of 2012. 14. On the merits of the matter, the respondents have pleaded the following facts:- 14A. The NIB dated 03.02.2020 was issued fixing the e-auction on 06.03.2020 but no bid was received therein. 14B. The petitioner-firm got itself registered on 18.03.2020 on the MSTC Portal for participation in the e-auction. 14C. The NIB was again issued at the old reserve price on 11.03.2020 and online bids were invited on 21.03.2020 but in this e-auction also, no bid was received. 14D. Since no bids were received in two NIBs, therefore, as per the second proviso to Rule 38(3) of the Rules of 2017, the reserve price was reduced upto 10% and NIB dated 23.03.2020 was issued and date of online bid was fixed on 01.04.2020. 14E. Due to COVID-19 situation, the State Government (Mining Department) issued letter dated 30.03.2020 to close down mining activities in all the minor mineral mining leases and as such, the NIB dated 23.03.2020 was postponed. However, vide letter dated 18.04.2020 mining activities in minor mineral leases were allowed to be resumed from 20.04.2020 and the State Government issued letter dated 22.05.2020 to invite NIBs at the earliest. 14F. However, vide letter dated 18.04.2020 mining activities in minor mineral leases were allowed to be resumed from 20.04.2020 and the State Government issued letter dated 22.05.2020 to invite NIBs at the earliest. 14F. In view of the directions given by the State Government vide letter dated 22.05.2020, NIB was issued by the respondents on 23.05.2020, as per the proviso to Rules 37(3) of the Rules of 2017 fixing online bidding on 04.06.2020. 14G. After issuance and publication of NIB dated 23.05.2020, the petitioner-firm deposited Rs.2.33 Crores on 03.06.2020 and even after deposition of the said amount, the petitioner-firm intentionally did not participate in the e-auction on 04.06.2020 and sent an email to M/s.MSTC Limited on the same day at 7:35PM for refund of the aforesaid amount. The respondents have pleaded that request for refund was immediately made after completion of the e-auction on 04.06.2020 without giving any reason for non-participation in the e-auction and accordingly, M/s.MSTC Limited refunded the amount to the petitioner-firm on 05.06.2020 and informed the respondents vide letter dated 07.09.2020. 14H. The petitioner-firm cannot be allowed to question the transparent action of the respondents and the petitioner-firm has filed a complaint after completion of e-auction process and declaration of successful bidder on 04.06.2020 and the petitioner-firm also filed complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau which was closed after preliminary enquiry, as there was no substance in the same. 14I. As far as departmental notings are concerned, they are internal communications and cannot be considered as final decision. The respondents have pleaded that they have not violated any Rule and as such, the petition, being wholly frivolous, deserves dismissal from this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the private respondent Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat has supported the stand taken by the State Government and has made following submissions:- 15A. The respondents have pleaded that they have not violated any Rule and as such, the petition, being wholly frivolous, deserves dismissal from this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the private respondent Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat has supported the stand taken by the State Government and has made following submissions:- 15A. As per the proviso to Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2017 where no bid is received or auction process is annulled under the clause (g) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017, period of fresh notice for re-inviting bid shall not be less than seven days and since in the instant case first three auctions so advertised went without bids due to which the respondent-State was compelled to issue the fourth auction with the reduction in reserve price of the contract and it also provided the period of seven days due to which no infirmity can be made out. 15B. As per Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2017 when the auction process is annulled, then the period of fresh bid shall not be less than seven days. In the facts of the present case, the e-auction so annulled will attract the fresh e-auction notice within the period of seven days and as such, notice was issued on 23.05.2020 and online auction was conducted on 04.06.2020, i.e., within a period of more than seven days and the compliance of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2017 was duly made. 15C. The allegation of formation of cartel has not been found prima facie established as the Anti Corruption Bureau has submitted its report. 15D. The e-auction notice has been challenged only in respect of four areas while the auction notices was issued for as many as 20 places and as such, pick and choose policy cannot be permitted to the petitioner-Firm. 15E. The successful bidders have executed the contract and as such, their rights cannot be frustrated by the petitioner- Firm without challenging their sanction orders and making them party respondent. 16. Learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyan Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561 . (ii) Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462 . (iii) Tata Cellular Vs. 16. Learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyan Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561 . (ii) Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462 . (iii) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 . (iv) Judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in the case of C.S. Traders Vs. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, reported in 2016 Writ Law Reporter 704 = (MANU/TN/0806/2016). (v) Judgment dated 09.09.2016 passed by this Court in the case of M/s.Sai Trading & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Limited & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P.No. 9449/2016). 17. I have learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 18. It would be relevant to quote the extract of the Rules of 2017, relevant for the present controversy, as follows:- “37. Procedure for e-auction and grant of contract.- (1) XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX (3) A centralized bidding cell at Directorate shall publish notice inviting bid (NIB) for e-auction in two daily newspapers, at least one of which is state level having circulation of fifty thousand copies and above and other having wide publicity in the area for which contract is being granted. The notice inviting bid shall also be compulsorily displayed on the notice boards of the Directorate and office of the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned. The notice inviting bid shall be published at least thirty days before the date fixed for submission of the bid and shall upload particulars, terms and conditions on the web portal of the department and agency appointed by the Government. The period of thirty days shall be counted from the publication of the notice inviting bid on the departmental website or on the website of the agency appointed for auction, whichever earlier. The registered bidders shall also be intimated by the authorized agency through e-mail. [Provided that in case where no bid is received or auction process is annulled under clause (g) of sub-rule (7), period of fresh notice for re-inviting bid shall not be less than seven days. The registered bidders shall also be intimated by the authorized agency through e-mail. [Provided that in case where no bid is received or auction process is annulled under clause (g) of sub-rule (7), period of fresh notice for re-inviting bid shall not be less than seven days. The above period of seven days shall be counted from the date of publication of the notice re-inviting bid on the departmental web site or on the website of the agency appointed for auction, whichever earlier.] (4) to (6) XXX XXX XXX *(7) The ascending forward online electronic auction shall be held in following manner, namely:- (i)The prospective bidders shall deposit bid security as per rule 39, as per time and date mentioned in notice inviting bid to the agency authorized for conducting e-auction through RTGS/NEFT/NET-BANKING: Provided that the prospective bidder may deposit a lumpsum amount in advance and from such amount, bid security of the contract for which he intends to bid, shall be deducted. The bidder may participate in as many auctions as per deposited amount.; (ii) The prospective bidders shall submit their price offer on the electronic platform exclusive of all taxes and duties, which shall not be less than the reserve price. The bidder will have the sole responsibility to make payment of all the applicable taxes and duties to the authorities concerned directly and produce the proof of the same to the department: Provided that the price offer may be revised till the conclusion of the e-auction as per notice inviting bid.; (iii) The date, time and period of e-auction shall be as per the schedule mentioned in notice inviting bid. However the closing time of e-auction shall be automatically extended in the event a bid is received during the last eight minutes before the scheduled closing time of electronic auction. The closing time of electronic auction will be automatically extended by eight minutes from the last received bid time to give equal opportunity to all other qualified bidders. This process of auto extension will continue till the last highest bid remains unimproved for a period of eight minutes; (iv)The successful bidder shall be decided by the system solely on the basis of highest bid submitted by the bidders. This process of auto extension will continue till the last highest bid remains unimproved for a period of eight minutes; (iv)The successful bidder shall be decided by the system solely on the basis of highest bid submitted by the bidders. No negotiation shall be conducted with any bidder; (v) On close of e-auction, the highest bidder shall be declared as successful bidder and thereafter bid sheet indicating the name of the successful bidder and bid price etc. shall be made available by the agency through e-mail within twenty four hours. The bid sheet may be downloaded through Management Information System (MIS) reports; and (vi) On deposition of performance security by the successful bidder, bid security of the successful bidder shall be refunded by the agency appointed for auction within seventy two hours." * (sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017 is substituted vide Notification dated F.14(9)Mines/Gr.II/2015-Pt.II dt.14.03.2018) 19. This Court finds that the respondent-State had invited NIB dated 23.05.2020 and the petitioner-Firm neither took part in the bidding process nor quoted the bid offer and as such, challenge to the NIB dated 23.05.2020 by the petitioner-Firm cannot be maintained. 20. This Court further finds that the Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have laid down the principle of law that a bidder who has not participated in the tender process, should not be allowed to challenge the award of contract. 21. This Court finds that the petitioner-Firm after completion of online e-auction process, started writing to different Authorities in the Department as well as made complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau. The petitioner-Firm is also said to have made offer on much higher price than the price quoted by the successful bidder and by offering better or higher price after auction process is over, no right can be claimed by the said bidder/petitioner-Firm. 22. This Court finds that if any person offers higher bid price, without participating in the auction process and after auction process is over, then such an offer cannot be taken into account and if this logic is accepted, then no auction process will ever be complete and will be made vulnerable by such offers given after completion of the auction process. 23. 23. This Court finds that if the auction process has been completed and the Authorities competent to accept the offer keeps in mind reserve price or any other relevant consideration, then argument of augmenting revenue cannot be accepted in such a situation. The person who intends to participate as a bidder and has interest of generating more revenue in favour of the State, has to show his bonafides/his offer by participating in the tender process and not after the said process is over. The hypothetical situation/offer which is given after completion of the auction process will vitiate any auction process which is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. This kind of tendency of bidders/firms who do not participate in the auction process, will never allow completion of contracts and as such, Authorities would be facing a situation where there genuine efforts can become questionable. 24. This Court finds that the conduct of the petitioner-Firm, in the present case, has not been above the Board. This Court finds that at one point of time the petitioner-Firm is said to have deposited the amount with the Department and later on it made a request to the auctioning agency M/s.MSTC Limited to refund the amount on 04.06.2020 and the same was also received by them on the next day i.e. 05.06.2020. The petitioner-Firm later on took a U-Turn and submitted that they have made a counter offer and given guarantee also to the respondent-State to ensure higher revenue, this plea of the petitioner-Firm cannot be appreciated and accepted by this Court. 25. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm that Director, Mines and Geology Department had expressed his views by drawing a note-sheet recommending cancellation of the NIB dated 25.03.2020 and re-invite the fresh bids, suffice it to say that internal notings of the Department in the office files do not confer any right in favour of the person and the Departmental Rulings are not authenticated orders of which judicial cognizance can be taken by the Court. The Apex Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 has clearly held that the note-sheets do not form or substitute any order and no right can be claimed on the basis of such note-sheet. The Apex Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 has clearly held that the note-sheets do not form or substitute any order and no right can be claimed on the basis of such note-sheet. The extract of para-14 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced as under:- “14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department; gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.” 26. The Apex Court, while dealing with somewhat similar issue, held in the case of Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705 , as follows:- “43. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Article 77(1) and (2) or Article 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. 52. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the noting recorded in the official files by the officers of the Government at different levels and even the Ministers do not become decision of the Government unless the same is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may, authenticated in the manner provided in Articles 77(2) and 166(2) and is communicated to the affected persons. The notings and/or decisions recorded in the file do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of any person and the same can neither be challenged in a court nor made basis for seeking relief. Even if the competent authority records noting in the file, which indicates that some decision has been taken by the concerned authority, the same can always be reviewed by the same authority or reversed or over-turned or overruled by higher functionary/authority in the Government.” 27. This Court further finds that the petitioner-Firm has challenged the action of the respondent-State of accepting the bid at four places and they have failed to array such successful awardees as party respondents in the present case. This Court finds that only on the application of impleadment, moved by one of the parties, order was passed by this Court on 02.09.2020 and the respondent No.4 M/s.Galaxy Mining Private Limited was arrayed as party respondent No.4. The petitioner-Firm in absence of such necessary parties seeks a declaration to annul the auction proceedings and without impleading said necessary parties as party respondent, the relief sought by the petitioner-Firm cannot be granted due to non-joinder of necessary parties in the present writ petition. 28. This Court further finds that the petitioner-Firm raised grievance in respect of mining leases mentioned at S.Nos.4, 5, 7 & 8 and out of these four areas, three areas are situated in the District Jodhpur and obviously if any challenge was to be made against allotment of these three mining areas, the writ petition filed by the petitioner at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur is not required to be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed. 29. 29. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm that as per clause (g) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017, the notice of re-inviting bid should have been for minimum 30 days and not of seven days as the auction process was not annulled under clause (g) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017, this Court finds that the respondent-State had invited tenders earlier on three occasions i.e. on 03.02.2020, 11.03.2020 and 23.03.2020 and the last bid dated 23.03.2020 was cancelled to be held on 8th and 9th April, 2020. Since the NIB dated 23.03.2020 was cancelled by the State Government, the authorities were within their domain to issue fresh NIB and accordingly notice of seven days was required to be given and no illegality, as such, can be found with the said action of the respondent-State. 30. This Court further finds that as per the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017, there are two contingencies where fresh notice for re-inviting bid can be issued and period will not be less than seven days. This method is adopted where either no bid is received or auction process is annulled under clause (g) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017. This Court has considered the earlier sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017 which was existing till the amendment in sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017 and the same has been substituted vide notification dated 14.03.2018. The earlier clause (g) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017 had conferred power of annulment of bid in certain contingencies and since the same provision is no more part of the Rule 37(7) of the Rules of 2017 and as such, the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2017 can be made use of by the respondents by giving notice of not less than seven days. 31. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-firm is dismissed. No costs.