JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 22.04.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5152 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed refusing to pass any positive direction in favour of writ petition, wherein direction was sought for upon the State Government to proceed with the second round of auction in accordance with the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2015”) as amended by Mineral Auction Amendment Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2017”). 2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder: The State of Jharkhand has come out with Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 25.10.2019 inviting bids in order to carry out e-auction for grant of mining lease of Lodhapat Jobhipat and Hethilodha Bauxite Blocks having concession area of 75.193 hectares fixing the last date of sale of tender document on 18.11.2019 and date of opening of tender on 17.12.2019. The petitioner no. 1 purchased the tender document on 08.11.2019 at the cost of Rs.4,95,600/-. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in terms of tender document, the upfront payment of Rs.8.16 crores was payable by the successful bidder as pre-bid security and further in terms of eligibility, the company had to have the net worth of more than Rs. 32.64 crores, which the petitioner no. 1 had duly met. As per terms of the NIT, in particular Clause 8, which is akin to Rule 10 of the Rules, 2015, the auction was to take place in two rounds. The first round of E-auction, which consists of technical bid and initial price bid, was to be submitted on or before 16.12.2019. The second round of auction was thereafter to be conducted on 20.01.2020. Further, in terms of the said tender document, the reserve bid was fixed at 10% of the mineral dispatched. Subsequently, the petitioner-company submitted its bid letter on 13.12.2019 expressing its interest in the said blocks, which was duly acknowledged by MSTC Ltd, the auction conducting agency, through e-mail on 16.12.2019. Further, in terms of the said tender document, the reserve bid was fixed at 10% of the mineral dispatched. Subsequently, the petitioner-company submitted its bid letter on 13.12.2019 expressing its interest in the said blocks, which was duly acknowledged by MSTC Ltd, the auction conducting agency, through e-mail on 16.12.2019. However, after first round of auction, the State Government vide notice dated 27.01.2020 decided to annul the first attempt of auction for granting of mining lease of the aforesaid Bauxite Block on the ground that there were less than three bidders, who had submitted their bid showing interest in the blocks in question, as such in terms of Rule 9 (9) of the Rules, 2015, which provides that in the first attempt of auction, the second round of auction commences only when the total number of technical qualified bidders is three or more. The State Government thereafter started the second attempt of auction in terms of Rule 9(11)(b) of the Rules, 2015, whereby the State Government had the option to conduct the process de novo i.e. with fresh terms and conditions or try a second attempt with the same terms and conditions as the previous NIT had. The State opted for the second option under Rule 9(11) of the Rules, 2015. Accordingly, the State Government issued Notice Inviting Tender dated 28.01.2020 inviting bid for grant of mining lease for the said block, for which, the petitioner-company again expressed its desire and once again purchased the tender documents on 10.02.2020. Thereafter, submitted the bid letter on 09.03.2020 alongwith required bank guarantee as bid security in favour of State, before due date i.e., 13.03.2020. However, due to break-out of Covid-19 pandemic in the country and consequential Lockdown orders passed by the Central Government, the State Government vide corrigendum dated 25.03.2020 informed the bidders that the auction of the mineral blocks in question is kept in abeyance till further orders. However, after some relaxation in Lockdown, the State Government came out with modified schedule, whereby announcement of technically qualified bidders was shifted from 07.04.2020 to 15.06.2020 and opening of initial price offer was shifted from 13.04.2020 to 22.06.2020 and then the electronic auction for final price offer was to be conducted on 24.06.2020 in place of 16.04.2020. Thereafter, the preferred bidder was to be announced on 24.06.2020 followed by subsequent stages. Thereafter, the preferred bidder was to be announced on 24.06.2020 followed by subsequent stages. In furtherance to the changed schedule, the State Government vide letter dated 10.06.2020 informed that the declaration of the technically qualified bidders would be done on 15.06.2020. It is case of the petitioner that though in terms of schedule, the e-auction and submission of final price offer was to be conducted on 24.06.2020, but till date the said auction has not been completed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. The State has appeared before the learned writ Court and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner had only submitted the physical copy of the tender bid, though the same was required to be submitted on electronic platform of MSTC. Therefore, the Technical Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 17.12.2019 observed that no technical bid was received till the schedule due date, as such the same cannot be considered as first attempt of auction. As per recommendation of the Tender Evaluation Committee, first round of auction was annulled on 27.01.2020 on account of no bid having been received and fresh tenders were issued for the Bauxite blocks in question. The Tender Evaluation Committee opened the tender on 16.03.2020 and found the petitioner no.1 as single bidder. Thereafter, meeting of the Committee was held on 11.06.2020 which recommended that since the petitioner no.1 was the single bidder, permission of the State Government would be taken for opening of financial bid and only thereafter further course of auction would be decided. Later on, the State Government decided to go for de novo auction as there was a single bidder only, as such the tender was subsequently annulled as per order of the State Government which was notified vide letters dated 27.12.2021. It has further been averred that the decision for annulment of the tender of the blocks in question is based on the consideration that huge resources of the Bauxite is involved and therefore better participation of the bidders in auction will be in the interest of revenue of the State. Had the tender been finalized on the basis of single bid, it would have caused substantial loss of premium mineral revenue to the State exchequer. Had the tender been finalized on the basis of single bid, it would have caused substantial loss of premium mineral revenue to the State exchequer. Therefore, the action taken for annulment of the tenders is in larger public interest. The learned Single Judge considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants, assailing the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, has submitted that the contention which has been raised by respondent-State of Jharkhand about annulment of the first attempt of auction vide order dated 27.12.2021 is absolutely incorrect in view of the fact that the State Government has resorted to second attempt of auction process in view of provision as contained under Section 9(11)(b) of the Rules, 2015, which would be evident from the counter affidavit dated 08.03.2022, wherein the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee dated 11.06.2020 has been appended, by which it is evident that in view of provision of Rule 9(12) of Rules 2015 (as amended by Rules 2017) during the second attempt of auction process the bidding shall continue to the second round even in case the number of technically qualified bidders are less than three, therefore decision has been taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee that in view of the provision of Rule 9(12) of the Rules, the second attempt of auction process is to be initiated and also recommended that the following bidder, namely, M/s Sociedade De Fomento Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margao, shall be declared as technically qualified bidder. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the Tender Evaluation Committee since has been conferred with the power by the State Government to take decision and once the decision has been taken by such committee in exercise of power conferred under Rule 9(12) of the Rules, 2015 for initiation of second attempt of auction process, now it cannot be allowed to be said on behalf of State that they have annulled the first tender process for the purpose of coming out with fresh tender, as has been done vide order dated 27.12.2021 and as such submission has been made that once the State has taken a decision to go for second attempt of tender process, the tender process ought to have come to its conclusion but instead of doing so, the State authority has not acted upon and, therefore, the writ petition has been filed. But the learned Single Judge without appreciating that aspect of the matter i.e., even in case of number of bidders having less than two or three, the second attempt of the auction process can be set at motion and even though it has been set on motion by virtue of decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee on 11.06.2020 but without appreciating that aspect of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed, as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in eye of law. 4. Per contra, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned S.C IV appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand has submitted that since there was single bidder and as such the State took a decision not to proceed with the second attempt of auction process and decided to go for the second tender. Therefore, the learned Single Judge taking into consideration these aspects of the matter is correct in dismissing the writ petition, as such the same may not be interfered with. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the original record called for during hearing of the matter and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the original record called for during hearing of the matter and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. 6. The fact, which is not in dispute in this case is that the State Government, in exercise of power conferred under Section 10B/11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957 and in accordance with Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (subsequent amendments till date) notified thereunder, issued Notice Inviting Tender on 25.10.2019 inviting bids through e-auction for grant of mining lease of Lodhapat Jobhipat and Hethilodha Bauxite Blocks having concession area of 75.193 hectares. The last date of sale of Tender Document on MSTC Website was fixed as 18.11.2019 and the last date for submission of technical bid on MSTC website was fixed as 16.12.2019 and the date of opening of tender was fixed as 17.12.2019. The petitioner participated in the tender process by purchasing the tender document on 08.11.2019 paying the cost of Rs.4,95,600/- and submitted the technical bid on 13.12.2019. But, subsequently the State Government, after the first round of auction, vide notice dated 27.01.2020 decided to annul the first attempt of auction for grant of mining lease of the aforesaid Bauxite Block. Thereafter, the State Government again came out with Notice Inviting Tender inviting bid for grant of mining lease on 28.01.2020, in which, the petitioner-company participated by purchasing tender document on 10.02.2020 and submitted bid letter on 09.03.2020. But the auction process could not be conducted due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and the resultant Lockdown orders issued by the Central Government, for which the State Government vide corrigendum dated 25.03.2020 informed the bidders that the auction of the mineral blocks in question would be kept in abeyance till further notice. However, after relaxation in Lockdown, the State Government vide letter dated 08.06.2020 informed MSTC, the conducting agency, to upload the corrigendum rescheduling tender process. In the meantime, the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee was held on 11.06.2020 who gave its recommendations and suggestions but no decision was taken thereupon rather a decision was taken by the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 21.01.2022 notifying therein about annulment of NIT dated 28.01.2020. In the meantime, the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee was held on 11.06.2020 who gave its recommendations and suggestions but no decision was taken thereupon rather a decision was taken by the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 21.01.2022 notifying therein about annulment of NIT dated 28.01.2020. The plea has been taken by the State of Jharkhand that in the tender process, the petitioner was the sole bidder and as such the State Government had taken decision not to go for second NIT. The learned Single Judge has accepted the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of State of Jharkhand and on that ground dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the plea by referring to the provision as contained under Rule 9 of Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 as amended by Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2017, which deals with the bidding process, the same is required to be referred herein which reads as under : “9. Bidding Process.- (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 5, the State Government shall issue a notice inviting tender, including on their website, to commence the auction process and such notice shall contain brief particulars regarding the area under auction, including,- (a) particulars of the area identified and demarcated using total station and differential global positioning system divided into forest land, land owned by the State Government, and land not owned by the State Government; and (b) estimated mineral resources and brief particulars regarding evidence of mineral contents with respect to all minerals discovered in the area during exploration in accordance with the provisions of the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents Rules, 2015. (2) The tender document issued by the State Government shall contain,- (a) geological report pursuant to the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents Rules, 2015 specifying particulars and estimated quantities of all minerals discovered in the area;[omitted] (b) revenue survey details of the area identified and demarcated using total station and differential global positioning system divided into forest land, land owned by the State Government, and land [not owned by the State Government]; and (c) [the scheduled date of commencement of production in case of auction of mining lease in respect of an area having existence of mineral contents established in accordance with Rule 5 of the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015.] (3) The bidders shall be provided a fixed period, as notified by the State Government, to study the tender document and such reports and the bidding process shall commence only on expiry of such period. [(4) The auction shall be an ascending forward online electronic auction and shall comprise of attempts of auction with each attempt of auction consisting of a first round of auction and a second round of auction. (5) In the first round of auction, the bidders shall submit, – (A) a technical bid comprising amongst others, documentary evidence to confirm eligibility as per the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder to participate in the auction, bid security and such other documents and payments as may be specified in the tender document; and (B) an initial price offer which shall be a percentage of value of mineral despatched. [Provided that bid security shall be for an amount equivalent to 0.25 per cent. [Provided that bid security shall be for an amount equivalent to 0.25 per cent. Of the value of estimated resources or fifty crore rupees, whichever is lower, and shall be submitted in the form of a bank guarantee or through security deposit: Provided further that in auction for composite licence for the mineral block having such type of deposit as specified in serial number I, II and III of Part III of Schedule I to the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015 (except those covered under Schedule II of the said rules), whose estimated quantity of mineral resources is not possible to be assessed for calculating the value of estimated resources under clause (m) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2, but the mining potentiality of the block has been identified based on the existing geosciences data, the bid security shall be fifty lakh rupees.] (6) Only those bidders who are found to be eligible in accordance with the terms and conditions of eligibility specified in rule 6 and whose initial price offer is equal to or greater than the reserve price, referred to as “technically qualified bidders”, shall be considered for the second round of auction. (7) The highest initial price offer amongst the technically qualified bidders shall be the floor (8) The technically qualified bidders shall be ranked on the basis of the descending initial price offer submitted by them and the technically qualified bidders holding the first fifty per cent. of the ranks (with any fraction rounded off to higher integer) or the top five technically qualified bidders, whichever is higher, shall qualify as qualified bidders for participating in the second round of electronic auction: Provided that if the number of technically qualified bidders is between three and five, then all the technically qualified bidders shall be considered as qualified bidders: Provided further that in the event of identical initial price offers being submitted by two or more technically qualified bidders, all such technically qualified bidders shall be assigned the same rank for the purposes of determination of qualified bidders and in such case, the aforementioned fifty per cent shall stand enhanced to the extent of tie occurring within the first fifty per cent. Illustration In the event there are a total of ten technically qualified bidders, and each technically qualified bidder submits different initial price offer, then the technically qualified bidders holding the first fifty per cent. of ranks shall be considered to be qualified bidders. If three such technically qualified bidders submit the same initial price offer and are ranked in first fifty per cent. of the total number of ranks, then, all the three technically qualified bidders shall be considered to be qualified bidders and the total number of qualified bidders shall stand increased by two. (9) Where the total number of technically qualified bidders is three or more, the auction process shall proceed to the second round of auction which shall be held in the following manner, namely:- (i) the qualified bidders may submit their final price offer which shall be a percentage of value of mineral despatched and greater than the floor price: Provided that the final price offer may be revised till the conclusion of the auction as per the technical specifications of the auction platform; (ii) The auction process shall be annulled if none of the qualified bidders submits a final price offer on the online electronic auction platform; (iii) The qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer shall be declared as the “preferred bidder” immediately on conclusion of the auction. (10) Where the total number of technically qualified bidders is less than three, then no technically qualified bidder shall be considered to be qualified bidder and the first attempt of auction shall be annulled. (11) On annulment of the first attempt of auction, the State Government may decide to– (a) commence the auction process de novo with a separate set of terms and conditions and reserve price as it may deem fit and necessary; or (b) conduct the second attempt of auction. (11) On annulment of the first attempt of auction, the State Government may decide to– (a) commence the auction process de novo with a separate set of terms and conditions and reserve price as it may deem fit and necessary; or (b) conduct the second attempt of auction. (12) In case the State Government decides to conduct the second attempt of auction as per clause (b) of sub-rule (11), the terms and conditions of the second attempt of auction shall remain the same as in the first annulled attempt of auction: Provided that the highest initial price offer of the technically qualified bidders if any in the first annulled attempt shall be the reserve price in first round of the second attempt: Provided further that the bidding shall continue to the second round even in case the number of technically qualified bidders is less than three.]” It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9(11), which speaks about circumstances on annulment of the first attempt of auction; the State Government may decide to- (a) commence the auction process de novo with a separate set of terms and conditions and reserve price as it may deem fit and necessary; or (b) conduct the second attempt of auction. Sub-section (12) thereof stipulates that in case the State Government decides to conduct the second attempt of auction as per clause (b) of sub-rule (11), the terms and conditions of the second attempt of auction shall remain the same as in the first annulled attempt of auction. 8. In the backdrop of these facts, this Court, is required to answer as to : (I) Whether the State Government has gone into second attempt of auction process in pursuance to notification vide orders dated 27.12.2021 and 21.01.2022? (II) Whether the State can be allowed to go for the fresh tender even though the State Government has resorted to the process in terms of provision as contained under Rule 9(11)(b) of the Rules by resorting to the second attempt of auction process? 9. (II) Whether the State can be allowed to go for the fresh tender even though the State Government has resorted to the process in terms of provision as contained under Rule 9(11)(b) of the Rules by resorting to the second attempt of auction process? 9. This Court, in order to answer the issue, has gone across the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents-State, wherein a document has been appended dated as 11.06.2020 which is the minutes of the proceeding by Tender Evaluation Committee, wherefrom it is evident that the Committee has gone for second round, in terms of the provision of Rule 9(11)(b) read with sub-rule 12 thereof. For ready reference, the contents of the said letter is quoted hereunder as : “Proceeding of the Tender Evaluation Committee for announcement of Technically Qualified Bidders held on 11th June, 2020 in the Officer of Director, Mines for Auction of Lodhapat Jobhipat & Hethilodha Bauxite Block for Grant of Lease. Attendance Attached At the outset, the members of the Tender Evaluation Committee were welcomed and briefed about the agenda for the meeting. Lodhapat, Jobhapat & Hethilodha Bauxite Block, Gumla district was put up for second attempt of auction on 26th January, 2020 vide Tender No. MSTC/RNC/Department OF GEOLOGY/42/RANCHI19-20/35661. The following bidder has uploaded its technical bid on the electronic platform and submitted the physical copy at the department on/before the Bid due date. i. M/s Sociedade De Fomento Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margao. Further, Rule 9 (12) of the Mineral (Auction) Amendment Rules, 2017 states that during the second attempt of auction process the bidding shall continue to the second round even in case the number of technically qualified bidders is less than three. The Committee evaluated the documents submitted by the bidder and found that all the documents were as per the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender document. The committee therefore recommended that the following bidder shall be declared as technically qualified and suggested that the future course of action shall be shall be undertaken as per the decision of the Government. i. M/s Sociedade De Fomento Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margao. The meeting ended with thanks to participants.” 10. The committee therefore recommended that the following bidder shall be declared as technically qualified and suggested that the future course of action shall be shall be undertaken as per the decision of the Government. i. M/s Sociedade De Fomento Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margao. The meeting ended with thanks to participants.” 10. This Court has examined the basis of decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee as was taken on 11.06.2020, and it appears therefrom that a decision was taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee wherein by considering the provision as contained under Rule 9(12) of the Rules, 2015 (as amended by Rules, 2017), which provides that even in case of the number of bidders is less than three the second attempt of auction process can be resorted to, therefore, decision dated 11.06.2020 was taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee for proceeding for the second attempt of auction process, as would be evident from the decision, as quoted and referred hereinabove. But subsequent thereto, contrary to the recommendation made by the Tender Evaluation Committee, a decision was taken by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, by which the second attempt of auction process was annulled vide order dated 21.01.2022. Therefore, in the instant case, the question of legality and propriety of the departmental order dated 21.01.2022 is required to be seen in terms of the statutory provision. 11. There is no dispute about the fact so far as statutory provision is concerned, as contained under Rule 9(11) and 9(12) of the Rules, 2015, wherein it has been stipulated as under Rule 9 that where the total number of technically qualified bidder is three or more, the auction process shall proceed to the second round of auction which shall be held in the following manner, namely, (i) the qualified bidders may submit their final price offer which shall be a percentage of value of mineral dispatched and greater than the floor price, provided that the final price offer may be revised till the conclusion of the auction as per the technical specifications of the auction platform; (ii).The auction process shall be annulled if none of the qualified bidders submits a final price offer on the online electronic auction platform; (iii)The qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer shall be declared as the “preferred bidder” immediately on conclusion of the auction. Sub-section (10) thereof stipulates that where the total number of technically qualified bidders is less than three, then no technically qualified bidder shall be considered to be qualified bidder and the first attempt of auction shall be annulled. Sub-section (11) thereof stipulates that on annulment of the first attempt of auction, the State Government may decide to– (a) commence the auction process de novo with a separate set of terms and conditions and reserve price as it may deem fit and necessary; or (b) conduct the second attempt of auction. Sub-Section (12) thereof stipulates that in case the State Government decides to conduct the second attempt of auction as per clause (b) of sub-rule (11), the terms and conditions of the second attempt of auction shall remain the same as in the first annulled attempt of auction. 12. Thus, the aforesaid provision specifically stipulates that government has got power under 9 (10) of the Rules, 2015 that in case the total number of technically qualified bidder is less than three, then no technically qualified bidder shall be considered to be qualified bidder and first attempt of auction shall be annulled; and on annulment the first attempt of auction the State Government may commence the auction process de novo with a separate set of terms and conditions and reserve price as it may deem fit and necessary or conduct the second attempt of auction, as per provision contained under Rule 9(11) of the Rules, 2015. Thus, the State Government may go for de novo auction process or conduct the second attempt of auction. 12. As such, now it is to be considered as to whether the State Government has taken a decision to go for de novo auction with separate terms and conditions or go for the second attempt of process? 13. For consideration of this issue, the document dated 11.06.2020, as appended with the counter affidavit has got bearing, whereby and whereunder the Tender Evaluation Committee, which has been delegated power by the State Government to take decision, took decision vide order dated 11.06.2020 to go for second attempt of auction. But, subsequent thereto, the authorities have taken decision to go for the de novo auction process. But, subsequent thereto, the authorities have taken decision to go for the de novo auction process. Thus, two decisions i.e., decision dated 11.06.2020 of the Tender Evaluation Committee, which took decision to go for second attempt of auction process and decision dated 27.12.2021 and 21.01.2022, taken by the Director of the concerned Department of the State Government which took decision to go for de novo auction process, was taken. Therefore, the question would arise whose decision would prevail i.e., the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee or the decision of the Director of the Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand. 14. This Court is aware of the power of judicial scope in the contractual matter, as has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ], wherein the proposition has been laid down that the scope of judicial review can be exercised in such a matter in a case where there is lack of reasonableness is administrative law which means to distinguish between proper use of power so as to eliminate the possibility of arbitrariness. Such power is to be exercised to find out the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or include a policy is contrary to the statutory provision. In such circumstances, the duty of the Court is to confine itself the question of legality and its concern should be : (i) Whether the decision-making authority exceeded its powers? (ii) committed an error of law, (iii) committed a breach of rules of natural justice, (iv) reached a decision with no reasonable tribunal could have reached or, (v) abused its power. 15. Admittedly, once the Tender Evaluation Committee has been appointed by the order of the State Government, the Tender Evaluation Commission is supposed to exercise its power to take appropriate decision in terms of the Rule. Herein, the Tender Evaluation Committee has taken a decision to go for second attempt of the auction process, as would be evident from decision taken in the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee dated 11.06.2020. Herein, the Tender Evaluation Committee has taken a decision to go for second attempt of the auction process, as would be evident from decision taken in the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee dated 11.06.2020. Thereafter, there is no progress in the proceeding rather the Department has come out with the noting, as contained in file dated 27.12.2001 without passing any order to that effect for publishing it in the daily newspaper for knowing the persons who are having interest in the tender process. It appears from the record that decision for fresh tender has been taken by the Director by referring therein that there are less than two or three bidders. But, such decision, which led the Director to take decision for fresh decision on the basis of number of bidder two or three cannot be said to be a valid reason since the proviso to Rule 9(12) whereby the decision is to be taken for second attempt of auction process even in case the number of bidders are less than two or three, meaning thereby even if the numbers of bidder is one, as per the said provision, the decision shall be taken for second attempt in the auction process and considering the aforesaid statutory provision the Tender Evaluation Committee has already taken decision on 11.06.2020. Therefore, decision of the Director to go for fresh tender based upon the aforesaid reason cannot be said to be justified one. 16. Hence, according to our considered view of this Court once the Tender Evaluation Committee has taken decision for second attempt of auction process it is not available for the State Government to take the plea for resorting to the de novo tender process. 17. 16. Hence, according to our considered view of this Court once the Tender Evaluation Committee has taken decision for second attempt of auction process it is not available for the State Government to take the plea for resorting to the de novo tender process. 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the view that the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court propounding therein the ratio to invoke the power of judicial review, in the given facts of this case, is well applicable since the decision for not proceeding on the basis of second attempt of auction process even though the same is provided under the statutory provision, basis upon which the second attempt of auction process is initiated but the authorities by not proceeding in pursuance to the said decision dated 11.06.2020 of the Tender Evaluation Committee, is contrary to the statutory provision and as such the such action will well be considered to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Considering the statutory provision the Tender Evaluation Committee has already taken decision for second attempt of auction process. 18. This Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety as also the legal position, gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge and has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee which was taken on 11.06.2020, which is in accordance with the provision as contained under proviso to Rule 9(12) of the Rules but the learned Single Judge has gone into general principle that the power is with the Government to cancel the tender and issue fresh one. But such principle is to be tested on the basis of applicable rule. Herein, the specific rule is either to go for de novo tender or to go for the second attempt of auction process. The duly constituted Tender Evaluation Committee since has taken decision to go for the second attempt of auction process, therefore, it is not available for the Department to take another decision that too by the Director of the Department prevailing upon the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee, considering the fact of statutory provision that the Tender Evaluation Committee has already taken decision for second attempt of auction process. Further, the reason upon which the writ petition has been dismissed is based upon the consideration of the fact by the learned Single Judge that in case if one bidder will be allowed in the auction process the same will be contrary to the public policy but while giving such finding the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that when the statutory provision is there for proceeding with the tender process even if in case of single bidder, as would appear from provision contained in the rule, it cannot be said that if the tender process would be allowed to proceed in a case of single bidder, it will be contrary to the public policy rather action is required to be taken by the Tender committee if not taken as per the statutory provision then only it can be said to contrary to the policy decision, but, herein, since the decision for second attempt in the auction process has been decided to be resorted to, as would appear from the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee dated 11.06.2020, it cannot be said to be contrary to the public policy. 19. Therefore, due to non-consideration of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, according to our considered view, requires interference. 20. Accordingly, the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5152 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. 21. In consequence thereof, the instant intra-court appeal stands allowed as also the writ petition stands allowed. 22. Consequent upon disposal of the writ petitions, the pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.