JUDGMENT : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The petitioner initially filed the present writ petition for quashing the order as contained in letter No.308 dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition), whereby the contract awarded to it was stayed with further prayer to restrain the respondents from initiating any fresh tender process for empanelment of agencies for supply of Organic Farm Inputs (Bio-Fertilizers/Bio-Pesticides/Soil Conditioners/Plant Growth Enhancers/Other approved Bio-Products (if any) with respect to the order as contained in letter No.106 dated 23.09.2019. 3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been permitted to amend the same, seeking challenge to the order as contained in letter No.479 dated 10.03.2021 issued by the respondent no.2 to the Director, Horticulture, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the contract awarded and concluded in favour of the petitioner-company in pursuance of inviting applications through Expression of Interest (in short ‘EoI’) dated 12.10.2019 published in newspaper on 16.10.2019 for supply of Organic Farm Inputs was rescinded unilaterally with a direction to undertake/initiate fresh tender process for empanelment of new agency/supplier as per the lowest quoted rate. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to implement the triennial organic farming certification in terms with final proceeding drawn on the basis of EoI dated 16.10.2019 and the decision as contained in memo no.53 dated 17.01.2020 by allowing it to co-ordinate with the service providers for supply of bio-farm inputs as per its schedule. 4. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the Organic Farming Authority of Jharkhand (in short ‘OFAJ’) published an EoI on 16.10.2019 in a daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" with reference to the government’s sanction letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019, inviting applications for empanelment of manufacturers for supply of Organic Farm Inputs (Bio-Fertilizers/Bio-Pesticides/Soil Conditioner/Plant Growth Enhancers/Other approved Bio-Products (if any). The petitioner-company participated and submitted the required technical and financial documents along with requisite fee as well as earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- within the stipulated time before the concerned authority as per the said EoI. The petitioner-company participated and submitted the required technical and financial documents along with requisite fee as well as earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- within the stipulated time before the concerned authority as per the said EoI. Upon submission of requisite documents by different bidders, the Chief Executive Officer, OFAJ respondent no.5 held a pre-bid meeting on 17th October, 2019 in which all the bidders who had submitted their bids were called for discussion, wherein the prospects of said scheme and the procedures for finalization of tender process were discussed apprising them the manner in which the tender proposals were to be submitted, moreover the procedures of evaluation of technical bid proposal were also made known to them. It was also clarified that the technical bid would be scrutinized by an evaluation committee and those firms/agencies, who fulfilled the minimum eligibility conditions, would be evaluated on the basis of scoring criteria. In terms with the EoI, a meeting of the tender committee under the Chairmanship of the respondent no.5 was convened on 24.10.2019 for technical evaluation of the proposals received and thereafter the tender committee notified the number of tender proposals (in total 08) received with the authority within the stipulated time and further the reasons for rejection of proposal of one of the bidders, namely, Indore Biotech Input & Research Pvt. Ltd., Indore due to non-submission of E.M.D. and tender fee at the threshold, was also assigned. Further, with respect to the remaining seven tender proposals, the tender committee decided to evaluate and scrutinize the technical documents submitted by the concerned agencies. The tender committee after scrutiny rejected the proposals of four agencies for non-conformity with the terms as stipulated in the tender document. Accordingly, tentative/provisional list of agencies likely to be empanelled was uploaded on the website of OFAJ on 03.01.2020 inviting objections from the concerned agencies within seven days from the date of such uploading. One of the agencies, namely, International Panacea Ltd. (I.P.L.) submitted its grievance/objection. The tender committee upon submission of said objection held a meeting on 17.01.2020 and took decision over the grievance of the aforesaid agency, discussing all the points so mentioned in the said objection and justified their decision attributable to non-conformity of clauses/terms by the said agency which were already mentioned in the proceedings dated 27.12.2019. The tender committee upon submission of said objection held a meeting on 17.01.2020 and took decision over the grievance of the aforesaid agency, discussing all the points so mentioned in the said objection and justified their decision attributable to non-conformity of clauses/terms by the said agency which were already mentioned in the proceedings dated 27.12.2019. The tender committee after deciding the objections so received by the aggrieved agency, finally drew proceedings for empanelment of three agencies including the petitioner-company and awarded contract to them for supply of organic farm inputs in Jharkhand vide memo no.53 dated 17.01.2020. The tender and purchase committee, while approving the financial proposals of these three agencies empanelled for supply of Bio-farm Inputs, equally notified the bio-products which the empanelled agencies were able to satisfy by meeting the guidelines and standards fixed by the Government and, accordingly, the list of products with their rate was also notified enabling the service providers to place their respective indents. The petitioner-company received letter no.60 dated 18.01.2020 from the office of the OFAJ under the signature of the Chief Executive Officer, requiring it (represented through any of the board members) to appear physically with the requisite documents as stipulated in the aforesaid letter for signing the MoU in pursuance of earlier information given by the OFAJ vide memo no.53 dated 17.01.2020. The petitioner through one of its board members appeared before the authority for signing the MoU in the light of the letter no.60 dated 18.01.2020 and, accordingly, the MOU came to be signed between the authorities of OFAJ and the petitioner on 24.01.2020. The authority, while undertaking the process for empanelment of manufacturers for the supply of organic farm inputs, also initiated the process of empanelling the service providers/agencies of repute for certification of Horticulture/ agricultural crops as per technical guidelines of National Standards for Organic Production (NSOP) and accredited by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) through same process by publishing EoI within same timeline in the daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar" on 16.10.2019 itself. After having completed the process of selection of service providers, the list of service providers was intimated by the respondent no.5 to the petitioner and other two agencies vide letter No.154 dated 29/01/2020 for coordinating and ensuring supply of the Bio-farm input to the service providers responsible for implementation of the Organic farming Project in the State of Jharkhand under NPOP/PGS certification Programme. The petitioner-Company by co-ordinating with the service-providers, as mentioned/detailed in the said letter, initiated the process of supply by accepting the indent of organic farm inputs. The petitioner-Company upon accepting the indent of said inputs placed by the service provider of Hazaribagh, namely, “Vedic Organic Certification Agency", initiated the process for supply of products as referred in the demand letter dated 07.02.2020, however, the Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand vide order as contained in memo no.308 dated 17.02.2020 stayed the operation of proceeding of empanelment, which was done by the respondent no.6 vide memo no.53 dated 17.01.2020 and resultantly the petitioner-company could not supply the organic farm inputs mentioned in the indent placed by the said service provider to the concerned farmers at their destination. Moreover, with passage of one year, the said products also lost efficacy and got destroyed putting loss to the petitioner-company besides affecting the project and purpose of the scheme. The petitioner represented the respondent no.5 against the suspension/ stay, as directed by the respondent no.3 putting the proceedings of empanelment done for supply of Bio-Farm inputs by the empanelled agencies on hold without assigning any reason, whereas other agencies empanelled for providing services for certification of Agriculture/ Horticulture Crops, as per technical guidelines of National Standards for Organic production (N.S.O.P) and accredited by A.P.E.D.A. were allowed to discharge their duties without organic farm inputs necessary for organic farming. Resultantly, the actual work of farming is impeded or put on hold for want of supply of Bio-farm inputs. Resultantly, the actual work of farming is impeded or put on hold for want of supply of Bio-farm inputs. The respondent no.5 replied the said representation of the petitioner vide letter No.513, dated 18.05.2020, wherein it was informed that the proceeding of empanelment earlier made vide memo no.53, dated 17.01.2020 was stayed and effected in terms with letter no.308 dated 17.02.2020 issued by the respondent no.3 and as soon as the information with respect to vacation of the said stay was received from the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand (Agriculture Wing), the same would be informed to the petitioner- company for further action. However, no action was taken by the respondents which resulted in filing the present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner received an e-mail with respect to the order as contained in letter no.479 dated 10.03.2021 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi- respondent no.2, whereby the contract awarded through EoI published in the newspaper dated 16.10.2019 was rescinded/cancelled. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter no.479 dated 10.03.2021 contains misconceived information which shows arbitrariness and mala fide intention on the part of the respondent authorities in arriving at such conclusion of cancelling the EoI, which is also not in public interest, rather the same is affecting the interest of public ex-chequer. It is further submitted that OFAJ had floated three different tenders/EoI on 12.10.2019 for selection of three different stakeholders (service providers/ organic certification agencies/bio-input manufacturers) for implementation of ICS Projects, but stay was only imposed on Bio-inputs supply tender which was cancelled after more than one year. So far other two categories of stake-holders i.e. service providers for implementation of ICS projects & organic certification agencies, who are also empanelled through EoI published in newspaper with reference to government sanction order vide letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019 are concerned, they are still working in Jharkhand since January, 2020 and are also getting payment by OFAJ at regular intervals after completion of their respective work under National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP). It is also submitted that the Organic Farming is being carried out in different States under NPOP programme and the State of Jharkhand has also adopted same procedure for empanelment of agencies what is being adopted in other States. It is also submitted that the Organic Farming is being carried out in different States under NPOP programme and the State of Jharkhand has also adopted same procedure for empanelment of agencies what is being adopted in other States. It is further submitted that if the respondents had intended to cancel the tender for the alleged violation of Clause-9 of the sanction letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019 issued by the respondent no.2, the same could have been done immediately after the award of contract without keeping the matter pending and stalling the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) for more than a year without Bio-farm inputs affecting the public interest. The guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission issued for maintaining transparency in procurements/sale etc., and the instruction so issued by CVC in addition to the existing rules and practices of giving publicity of tenders through newspapers and further to keep the complete bid documents on website of the Organization were duly followed. OFAJ is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which has its own independent legal identity. The petitioner has signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Chief Executive officer of OFAJ- respondent no.5 and as such, the Governing body of OFAJ is competent to take any decision and, therefore, the secretariat of the State Government had no authority to order for cancellation of the same by interfering with the matter of any decision making process with respect to awarding the contract. If agreement has been signed between two parties, any decision on the same should be taken by these two parties only as per the terms and conditions mentioned in MoU/ Agreement. The terms of contract do not provide any clause empowering the respondent no.3 or any other authority to take decision of such nature without taking approval of the Governing Body of OFAJ and that too without following the principles of natural justice seeking any explanation from first or second party to the contract. 6. It is further contended that finalization of tender with L-1 can only be possible where product and quantity with specifications are defined, however, on perusal of the order as contained in letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019, it would be evident that specification of product is absent and in place of that, word “Organic Product” is mentioned which is categorized into Bio-fertilizer, Bio-pesticide, soil conditioner, Plant growth enhances, pest repellents etc. Even under the NPOP guidelines, there is no such provision to decide L1 in every organic product and empanelment of agencies is done because the products are to be purchased from these facilitators, bio-farm inputs suppliers as per need and requirement to be suggested by the service providers to the farmers. 7. It is also submitted that three members committee headed by Sri Anjani Kumar, Additional Director-cum-Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand had found no infirmity in the entire process of empanelment adopted by OFAJ, however, said Anjani Kumar in his personal capacity deviated from the report of Committee and substituted the same with a totally different view by making recommendation to the Departmental Secretary through docket memo no.724 dated 26.02.2021 for cancellation of the contract, which resulted in passing of the impugned order of cancellation of empanelment of the petitioner for supply of organic farm inputs. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Co-operative (Agriculture wing) Government of Jharkhand, vide its letter no.106 dated 23/09/2019 approved fund of Rs.100.00 Crores for the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 collectively for executing Triennial Organic Farming Certification Scheme out of which Rs.35.00 Crores was sanctioned for the financial year 2019-20. The scheme was to be implemented through OFAJ for which the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Co-operative (Agriculture wing), Government of Jharkhand vide its letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019 issued various directions and also prescribed the procedure regarding execution of the scheme in its true letter and spirit. It is further submitted that as per Clause 9 of the letter dated 23.09.2019, selection of the executing agency/certification agency/organic farm inputs supplier were to be made through open tender, however, the OFAJ issued EoI dated 12.10.2019 (published in newspaper on 16.10.2019) which was contrary to the specific direction issued by the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative (Agriculture wing) Government of Jharkhand. Having received various complaints by the said department, a three member enquiry committee was constituted vide departmental letter no.2280 dated 16.12.2020 with the approval and consent of the Minister, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative Department and the said committee also observed in the enquiry report that the implementing agency i.e. OFAJ had deviated from the directions given vide departmental letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019 by issuing “Expression of Interest” in place of inviting open tender. The intent behind that was to select manufacturers/suppliers by way of open tender so as to minimise the rate to the lowest possible extent, but the implementing agency by issuing EoI frustrated the said purpose. The department has issued show cause notice to the respondent no.5 vide memo no.479 dated 10.03.2021 regarding his disobedience and arbitrary action. It is also submitted that the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued letter to the Director, Horticulture, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter no.479 dated 10.3.2021 to cancel the said EoI and to invite a fresh tender as well as to take action against the respondent no.5 by issuing show cause notice. Had an open tender been invited, minimum rate of organic farm inputs would have been finalized at that stage itself whereas in the present situation, the suppliers were empanelled through EoI with no guarantee of minimum rate. Minimum rate is discovered in an open tender and thereby public money is saved by which more persons can be benefitted. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner for supply of Organic Farm Inputs has been rescinded on the ground that implementing agency i.e. OFAJ awarded the contract by way of EoI in violation of Clause 9 of the letter dated 23.09.2019, which specifically provides for award of contract through open tender. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ankush Aggarwal and Others Vs. Food Corporation of India & others, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar. 697, wherein having gone through several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the scope of the writ court while entertaining writ petitions in contractual matter has been summarized. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:- “14. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it may be construed that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition in a contractual matter where some disputed questions of facts are involved. However, if the dispute involved in a matter is so complex that it can only be determined after a thorough long-drawn adjudicatory process by leading evidences, the writ petition should not be entertained. However, if the dispute involved in a matter is so complex that it can only be determined after a thorough long-drawn adjudicatory process by leading evidences, the writ petition should not be entertained. Each and every case is to be dealt with on its own facts. If the materials on record are clearly evincible, the writ court may exercise the power of judicial review. 15. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature. The High Court has discretion to exercise or not to exercise such discretion having regard to the facts of each case. However, the High Courts have imposed self-restraints in such exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs, and thus, the same are not normally issued to the exclusion of other available remedies, unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the High Courts think it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction. 16. It is true that by way of judicial review, the High Court is not expected to act as a court of appeal while examining an administrative decision and to record a finding as to whether any different decision could have been taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. By way of judicial review, the Writ Court should ordinarily refrain from examining the details of the terms and conditions of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. The Writ Court has inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. However, the Writ Court can certainly examine whether “decision making process” is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once the procedure adopted by an authority in the matter of a contract is found to be against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Court cannot ignore such action on the pretext that the authorities concerned must have some latitude or liberty in contractual matters and any interference by the Writ Court would amount to encroachment on the exclusive right of the authority to take such decision.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the impugned order of cancellation of contract has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, since no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before issuing the same and on the said ground alone, it is liable to be set aside. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also put reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847, wherein it has been held as under:- “39. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals: (1) Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused. (2) Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest. (3) No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice. (4) In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. (5) The “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. (5) The “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice.” 13. In the case in hand, the respondents do not allege against the petitioner, rather the contract awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of violation of clause 9 of the letter dated 23.09.2019 by the implementing agency i.e. OFAJ, which had selected the petitioner through EoI instead of open tender. Under the said circumstance, even if the petitioner had been given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of cancellation, the same would not have changed the position. Had there been any allegation against the petitioner, resulting in cancellation of contract, the respondents would have been bound to observe strict compliance of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the sole ground for cancellation of the contract is non-observance of Clause 9 of the letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019. The fact that the executing agency had selected the petitioner through EoI and not through open tender is uncontroverted, hence, no any show cause notice was required to be served to the petitioner that too when no allegation was made against it. Moreover, it appears from the record that the show cause notice was served to the erring officer(s) for the alleged violation. 14. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents, while taking the impugned decision, have failed to consider that the implementing agency i.e. OFAJ had completed the process of tender by receiving the tender documents through EoI which was part of qualification process whereby the suppliers were requested to express interest in providing goods and services for the scheme. Since the procedure of tender was duly followed by the implementing agency, it did not violate Clause 9 of the Government sanction order no.106 dated 23.09.2019 as alleged in the impugned order of cancellation of contract. 15. Since the procedure of tender was duly followed by the implementing agency, it did not violate Clause 9 of the Government sanction order no.106 dated 23.09.2019 as alleged in the impugned order of cancellation of contract. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents has justified the impugned action by contending that several complaints were received by the department whereupon three members committee was constituted to verify those complaints and from the report of the said enquiry committee, it surfaced that the implementing agency had floated EoI in place of inviting open tender and thus had violated the requirement of Clause 9 of the Government sanction order as contained in letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019. It has further been submitted that the intent of the department was to award the work by finalizing the same through open tender which would have invited competitive price bid as well, but the implementing agency deviated from the same. 16. By inviting Expression of Interest, an organization asks from contractors to express interest in providing goods and services. In EoI, there is no requirement to quote price and the general intent is to enter some form of negotiation or process which may lead to a contract in future, whereas in open tender, response can be accepted immediately and the contractor can be legally bound to enter into a contract for the work at the tendered price through competitive bidding. 17. Clause 9 of the Government sanction order as contained in letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019 specifically provides that the contract shall be awarded through open tender. Undoubtedly, there is difference between the process of finalization of contract by way of EoI and through open tender. The respondents have also explained the reason for putting such a condition in the said sanction order and have stated that the purpose behind that was to save public money by finalizing the tender with the contractor having minimum rates of organic farms inputs which was not possible in Expression of Interest. The respondents have further contended that the undertaking given by the contractor to the effect that the price quoted in the financial bid is the minimum price and not more than the market price in the State of Jharkhand, cannot be said to be the guarantee of minimum rate. 18. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The respondents have further contended that the undertaking given by the contractor to the effect that the price quoted in the financial bid is the minimum price and not more than the market price in the State of Jharkhand, cannot be said to be the guarantee of minimum rate. 18. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India & Others, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the rule of interpretation is applicable to documents alike the statutes i.e. except for compelling necessity, the Court should not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document “and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use”. To reject words as insensible should be the last resort of judicial interpretation, as it is an elementary rule based on common sense that no author of a formal document intended to be acted upon by the others should be presumed to have used the words without a meaning. The court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable. 19. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted undertaking to the effect that the price of the farm produce to be supplied by it would be minimum and would not exceed the market rate and thus the contract awarded to the petitioner is beneficial for the respondents as no loss of public exchequer would occur by awarding the contract, I am of the considered view that the said argument will also not help the case of the petitioner. Since the State Government had intended to award the contract by open tender selecting the tenderer(s) through competitive bidding process on price aspect as well, the implementing agency (OFAJ) by not adopting the said procedure has violated the said direction. Under such circumstance, the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality by cancelling the said contract. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Another Vs. Under such circumstance, the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality by cancelling the said contract. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Another Vs. Shishir Realty Private Limited and Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141, wherein it has been held that when the State failed to produce an iota of evidence of either financial loss or any other public interest that was affected, it should be compelled to fulfil its promises. However, in the case in hand, the specific contention of the respondents is that the government would suffer financial loss as the tender was not finalized fetching the minimum rate of organic farm inputs. Thus, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not be applicable in this case. Moreover, scope of interference by a writ Court against the decision of the State authority cancelling the tender/contract on the ground of loss to public exchequer is minimal. 21. The next limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the government sanction order given vide letter no.106 dated 23.09.2019, the empanelment of other two stakeholders i.e. service providers and certification agencies was also to be done through open tender, however, the Secretary of the Department has not questioned their selection though they have also been selected by inviting similar EoI which is arbitrary and discriminatory. 22. The specific case of the respondents is that the EoI invited by the OFAJ for selecting suppliers of bio-input products has been cancelled due to price factor. The respondents have contended that in open tender, the minimum quoted price is obtained through competitive bidding by which public money is saved whereas in EoI the suppliers are empanelled with no guarantee of minimum rates. So far as the selection of the service providers and certification agencies are concerned, the petitioner has not brought on record any fact to suggest that price factor was also involved in the said contract. Moreover, the selection of the service providers and certification agencies is not under challenge in the present writ petition. So far as the selection of the service providers and certification agencies are concerned, the petitioner has not brought on record any fact to suggest that price factor was also involved in the said contract. Moreover, the selection of the service providers and certification agencies is not under challenge in the present writ petition. The successful contractors for the said works are also not parties here and as such the legality and propriety of the award of those works is not required to be looked into. The petitioner has also not alleged mala fide in the action of the respondent authorities. Nevertheless, the petitioner will get equal opportunity to compete with other bidders in any subsequent tender, if the respondents decide to go for the same. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as contained in letter no.308 dated 17th December, 2020 so as to interfere with the same under extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction. 24. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.