ORDER : 1. These appeals are filed by the appellant against the common order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the cancellation and rejection of the bid for plots situated in RIICO Industrial Area vide order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the respondent-corporation, has been dismissed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel argued at length to assail the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the action of the respondent-Corporation is per se arbitrary and it is not a case where the bid offered by the appellant herein was, in any manner, lower than the minimum offset price fixed by the respondents themselves. It is contended that fixation of minimum offset price is based on conscious consideration of existing market rates and other surrounding conditions which include location of the plots and many other factors which are presumed to have been taken into consideration while fixing the minimum offset price. There was no procedural irregularity or any material to even remotely suggest that any favour or disfavour was done. Despite that, the respondent authorities, without there being any relevant materials, have arbitrarily rejected the highest bid of the appellant in the auction proceedings. Appellant in both the appeals had submitted his respective bids, which were more than the minimum offset price. That means, even according to respondents, the appellant had offered bid amount which was just and proper. The decision, which is said to have been taken by the committee consisting of certain officers, is only an eye wash to somehow justify the arbitrary action. 3. Learned Senior Counsel would highlight that some of the successful bidders of the other plots, who are trying to create monopoly, having participated in the process of tender in other cases, started making complaints and on these complaints, without any basis, bids of the appellant have been rejected which not only suffers from mala fide but also manifest arbitrariness and therefore, in such cases, even cancellation of bid and auction proceedings could be interfered with by the Writ Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Kumara Gupta Vs. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple and Ors.[Civil Appeal Nos. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Kumara Gupta Vs. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple and Ors.[Civil Appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022] and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors.[ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ]. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, who entered appearance at this stage of admission itself, would submit that the learned Single Judge has upheld the action of the respondents taking into consideration that the decision of the respondents to cancel bids in respect of auction of some of the plots was a reasoned decision based on relevant materials that in case of number of plots, high bid amount was received, whereas, in cases of another set of plots including that of the appellant, particularly, when the plots are adjoining and almost similarly situated, low bid amounts were received. When this was noticed, a committee of senior officials was constituted and the committee, taking into consideration large variation in highest offer in respect of different sets of plots, though situated in the same industrial area and adjoining each other, decided that in all those cases where the offered highest bid is more than 1510, would be approved but in cases where the highest bid is on lower side being less than 1500, would be rejected. The decision of the minutes of e-auction held on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022 clearly reflects due consideration by the committee consisting of three senior officials of RIICO Limited, Nagaur. The decision was not taken in isolation only to reject the bid of the appellant but large number of bids below the rate of Rs. 1500, being 38 in numbers, were also rejected whereas, only those bids where the bid offered was more than 1510, being 33 in numbers, were approved. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the aforesaid undisputed factual position and the limited scope of interference against the rejection of bid proceedings and auction proceedings, as rendered in number of decisions, has dismissed the writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents available on record. 7. The records reveals that auction of 75 numbers of industrial plots in RIICO Industrial Area Gogelav, Nagaur was held. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents available on record. 7. The records reveals that auction of 75 numbers of industrial plots in RIICO Industrial Area Gogelav, Nagaur was held. The e-auction committee scrutinized the bids which were offered in respect of the plots which were to be auctioned in the auction proceedings and found that there was variation in the highest bid amount offered in respect of different plots, though the plots were adjoining and situated in the same industrial area and there was no significant difference with regard to location or with reference to any other peculiar feature so as to justify large variation in the highest bid offered in respect of different plots. The committee scrutinized the available material and categorized the bids in as many as five categories. After taking into consideration that in many cases rates of more than 1500 was offered, had decided to reject 38 bids including that of the appellant where the bid amount offered was less than 1500 taking into consideration significant variation in the rates. 24 plots which fetched rate more than 2000 and 9 plots which fetched rate more than 1510 were approved. The decision was taken by the committee consisting of as many as three officials. 8. We therefore find that the basis of the order of the learned Single Judge was the aforesaid reasoned decision taken by the committee consisting of high officials for reasons which cannot be said to be per se irrational or irrelevant. Not only the materials on the basis of which decision was taken were relevant but the decision based on such materials cannot be said to be suffering from manifest arbitrariness so as to warrant interference by this Court, giving the limited scope of interference as laid down in number of decisions, which have been referred to in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Once there is no defect found in the decision making process, the decision itself would not ordinarily be liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the decision is so patently erroneous, manifest arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable that interference of the Writ Court is warranted. 10. Once there is no defect found in the decision making process, the decision itself would not ordinarily be liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the decision is so patently erroneous, manifest arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable that interference of the Writ Court is warranted. 10. Though during the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought to assail the action of the respondents on the ground of mala fide, we find that neither those officers who were members in the committee have been impleaded in their personal capacity nor do we find that there is any clinching material on record to suggest that the officers acted mala fide against the present appellant only to harm the appellant. 11. On the other hand, it is not disputed that the decision was not taken by any single authority but by a committee consisting of three senior officials of the respondents. Moreover, the decision bears clear nexus with the specific data with regard to bid amounts offered in respect of large number of plots. Classification for the purposes of approval and rejection of bid is also based on difference in rates. Moreover, it is not the appellant alone but large number of bidders have been adversely affected whose bid has been rejected as the case of the petitioners. 12. In the case of K. Kumara Gupta (supra), the action of cancellation was taken recourse to after much water had flown. Their Lordships in the Supreme Court observed therein that long after finalizing of the bid and even execution of the sale deed, without cogent material that the valuation of the property in the year 1998 was much more and that highest bid of the bidder in that case was for a lesser consideration than the actual value of land, decision was made in that case. The aforesaid decision is therefore clearly distinguishable on facts. 13. Learned Senior Counsel lastly argued that the respondents, having found lesser bid in some of the cases including the case of the appellant, could have even resorted to negotiations which was also not done and thus the entire efforts, man, machinery deployed in holding auction has gone waste which could have been avoided. 14. 13. Learned Senior Counsel lastly argued that the respondents, having found lesser bid in some of the cases including the case of the appellant, could have even resorted to negotiations which was also not done and thus the entire efforts, man, machinery deployed in holding auction has gone waste which could have been avoided. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that such procedure of inviting the bids with negotiations has not been prescribed under the terms and conditions of auction, petitioner cannot claim as a right that negotiations should be held. 15. Though we cannot direct respondents to call the appellant for negotiations, as there is no such procedure prescribed in the terms and conditions of auction, it remains the policy of the respondents to consider this aspect and it is open for them to invite the highest bidders in cases where bids have been rejected, for negotiation for rates equal to or higher than the rates fetched in respect of those plots where bid has been approved. 16. In the result these appeals are found to be without merit as no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.