JUDGMENT : Both these writ petitions – W.P.[C] no. 2611/2016 and W.P.[C] no. 1966/2017 – have been preferred by the same petitioner in respect of a competitive bidding process initiated by a Notice Inviting Quotations dated 07.02.2014 [‘the 1st NIT, for convenience] in respect of two diversion areas [stone] viz. Kathalguri Stone Quarry Area no. 1 [B] and Kathalguri Stone Quarry Area no. 2 wherein the petitioner had emerged as the sole responsive bidder and the subsequent decision dated 02.01.2015 taken by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Division, Nagaon [‘the DFO, Nagaon’, for convenience] cancelling the entire process; and thereafter, publication of a subsequent Short Tender Notice for sale of Minor Minerals dated 17.03.2017 [‘the 2nd NIT’, for convenience] in respect of the same two Mining Contract Areas. 2. It may be mentioned that the Mining Contract Area named Kathalguri Stone Quarry Area no. 1 [B] has been renamed as Kathalguri Stone Mahal no. 1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mining Contract Area no. 1, for convenience] at a later point of time and the name of the Mining Contract Area, Kathalguri Stone Quarry Area no. 2 has been changed to Kathalguri Stone Mahal no. 2 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mining Contract Area no. 2, for convenience]. 3. By the 1st NIT, published in the newspapers on 19.02.2014, the DFO, Nagaon invited quotations from user agencies/individuals to submit their bids for processing of diversion proposals for operation of intended Diversion Areas [Stone] under the Nagaon Forest Division. The 1st NIT further stipulated that only the bid of the highest bidder above the Reserved Price mentioned against the particular Diversion Area, would be taken up for further processing of the diversion proposal for clearance under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 r/w the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. The selected individuals/user agencies would be required to make payment of NPV, Royalty, Compensatory Afforestation charges, etc. and the same would form part of the compliance of conditions in processing the diversion proposal. In the 1st NIT, a number of Diversion Areas [Stone] were mentioned. The issues involved in these two writ petitions pertain to the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2. 4. In response to the 1st NIT, the petitioner submitted his separate bids in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2. The issues involved in these two writ petitions pertain to the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2. 4. In response to the 1st NIT, the petitioner submitted his separate bids in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2. The DFO, Nagaon after receipt of the bids from the participating bidders, evaluated them and prepared separate comparative statements in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2. In respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1, the petitioner was the sole bidder and the DFO, Nagaon found the bid of the petitioner to be a responsive one. In respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 2, a total of 3 [three] bidders participated but the DFO, Nagaon found the bid of the petitioner to be the only responsive one and the other two bids were declared to be non-responsive. 5. In respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 2, the DFO, Nagaon forwarded the matter along with the comparative statement to the Conservation of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur for necessary action at his end by a letter dated 08.05.2014. Similarly, after preparing the comparative statement and observing other necessary formalities, the DFO, Nagaon forwarded the matter in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 to the Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur on 28.05.2014. It was indicated in the letter dated 08.05.2014 and the letter dated 28.05.2014 by the DFO, Nagaon that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and earnest money deposits [EMDs] in the form of demand draft along with his bids. The Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur had, in turn, forwarded the proposals for diversion of the Mining Contract Areas to the Chief Conservator of Forests [T], Upper Assam Zone, Guwahati immediately thereafter. The Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur while forwarding the diversion proposals, stated that the concerned Mining Contract Areas would be allowed for settlement only after obtaining the final approval under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 from the office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest [MoE&F], Government of India. The Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur while forwarding the diversion proposals, stated that the concerned Mining Contract Areas would be allowed for settlement only after obtaining the final approval under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 from the office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest [MoE&F], Government of India. But the proposals were returned back by the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam to the subordinate authorities including the DFO, Nagaon, to resubmit the tender papers for settlement of the Mining Contract Areas located inside the Reserved Forest areas. It was thereafter on 02.01.2015, the DFO, Nagaon by his Office Order no. 05 of even date had informed all concerned to the effect that the competitive bidding process initiated by the 1st NIT dated 07.02.2014 in respect of 17 nos. of diversion proposal areas including the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2, had been cancelled due to technical difficulties. By the said Office Order no. 05, the DFO, Nagaon requested the bidders to collect their EMDs submitted along with their bids in response to the 1st NIT dated 07.02.2014. 6. Aggrieved by the said Office Order no. 05 dated 02.01.2015 of the DFO, Nagaon, the petitioner has instituted the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2611/2016 challenging the same with the further prayer to settle the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2 in his favour. 7. Subsequent to the Office Order no. 05 dated 02.01.2015, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam published the 2nd NIT dated 17.03.2017 whereby sealed tenders were invited from intending bidders for grant of mining contracts in respect of 19 nos. of Mining Contract Areas including the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no.2. Assailing that part of the 2nd NIT dated 17.03.2017 relating to the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1966/2017. 8. Heard Mr. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Assam for all the respondents. 9. Mr. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1966/2017. 8. Heard Mr. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Assam for all the respondents. 9. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to the 1st NIT, the petitioner had submitted his bids separately in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2. The bid values offered by the petitioner in respect of both the Mining Contract Areas were above the fixed Government value. In respect of both the Mining Contract Areas, his bids were found responsive. In respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1, he was the sole participating bidder whereas in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 2, his bid was found to be the sole responsive bid amongst the 3 [three] participating bidders. In such view of the matter, both the Mining Contract Areas ought to have been settled in favour of the petitioner. But the respondent authorities in an arbitrary manner had decided to cancel the competitive bidding process initiated by the 1st NIT and as a result, the petitioner has suffered immense prejudice and loss in terms of money. It is submitted by him that in respect of the same two Mining Contract Area, the respondent authorities had decided to invite bids again by the 2nd NIT dated 17.03.2017 which, according to him, is not sustainable in law. Mr. Deka has submitted that the entire process of cancellation of the 1st NIT and the publication of the 2nd NIT are in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not informed about the cancellation of the bidding process initiated by the 1st NIT. 10. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent authorities in the Forest Department has submitted that the DFO, Nagaon had issued the 1st NIT dated 07.02.2014 but the said NIT was hedged with a condition that the Mining Contract Areas, mentioned therein, would be settled subject to approval for diversion of the areas under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest [MoE&F], Government of India. Moreover, he has submitted that the DFO, Nagaon was not delegated with the power to initiate the competitive bidding process for settlement of a Mining Contract Area under the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. When the decision of the higher authorities was conveyed to the DFO, Nagaon, to submit the tender papers for settlement of the Mining Contract Areas after compliance of the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, the Office Order dated 02.01.2015 came to be passed by the DFO, Nagaon whereby the diversion proposals for Mining Contract Areas located inside the Reserved Forest areas were cancelled. As such, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Office Order no. 05 dated 02.01.2015. He has further submitted that the 2nd NIT was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam who is the competent authority to settle a Mining Contract Area for collection of mining minerals under the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record. 12. The Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 have laid down the procedure for settlement of a Mining Contract Area. It is noticed that the 1st NIT was published by the DFO, Nagaon seeking quotations for processing of the diversion proposals for clearance under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 r/w the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. The NIT indicated that the bids were invited for processing the diversion proposals of the highest bidder for operation of the intended Diversion Areas [Stone] under the Nagaon Forest Division, Nagaon. There is no dispute to the fact that the proposed diversion areas are located inside Reserved Forest areas. Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 with a non-obstante clause, has provided that, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any reserved forest [within the meaning of the expression ‘Reserved Forest’ in any law for the time being in force in that State] or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved or any order that any forest Land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. 13. 13. When the 1st NIT is read together with the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980, it prima facie indicates that the proposed diversion areas for mining contract in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and the Mining Contract Area no. 2 were subject to grant of approval by the Ministry of Environment and Forest [MoE&F], Government of India. 14. As per Rule 2 [e] of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, ‘competent authority’ means the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam in respect of minor minerals as listed in Schedule ‘Y’ of the said Rules. The minor mineral, ‘stone’ has figured at serial no. 12 in Schedule ‘Y’. The stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities is interaliato the effect that the DFO, Nagaon is not the competent authority to accept the bids/rates involving an amount higher than Rs. 25,000/-and it has been stated that the DFO, Nagaon has not been delegated with the power to accept bids/rates under Rule 37 [1] of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. As per Rule 37 [1], no bid shall be regarded as ‘successful’ unless accepted by the officer competent to accept bid/tender in accordance with the provision of the Delegation of Financial Rules, 1999 of the State. The petitioner has not been able to controvert the said position. 15. When the 1st NIT and the 2nd NIT are looked at together, a perceptible difference can be seen in the sense that the 2nd NIT was published by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam who is the competent authority as per Rule 2 [e] of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. Another perceptible difference that can be seen is that the 2nd NIT is not hedged with a condition of prior approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forest [MoE&F], Government of India under Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980 on any diversion proposal in respect of the Mining Contract Areas for which the bids had been invited. 16. As has been mentioned above, the petitioner was the lone participating responsive bidder in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and he was also the sole responsive bidder amongst the 3 [three] participating bidders, in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 2. 17. 16. As has been mentioned above, the petitioner was the lone participating responsive bidder in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and he was also the sole responsive bidder amongst the 3 [three] participating bidders, in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 2. 17. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contract by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions. While it is true that the Court can exercise the power of judicial review to examine the decision-making process and in the process, it can also examine the legality of the decision but it does not examine the soundness of any decision. Submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State is or its agencies/instrumentalities are under no obligation to accept. A bidder participating in the tender process cannot insist that his tenders should be accepted simply because his tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that a participating bidder is entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of the tender. It is only to that extent a bidder has an enforceable right and the Court can examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or meted out a discriminatory treatment. 18. In case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part of the tendering authority issuing the tender notice to accept any of the tenders or even the highest tender or the lowest tender depending upon the nature of tender process. After tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the bidders who have given their tenders, there is no competition, the tendering authority may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the tender. So long as the bid has not been accepted, the lowest bidder or the highest bidder, as the case may be, does not acquire any vested right to get the contract concluded in his favour. 19. So long as the bid has not been accepted, the lowest bidder or the highest bidder, as the case may be, does not acquire any vested right to get the contract concluded in his favour. 19. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jharkhand and others vs. CWE-Soma Consortium, reported in [2016] 14 SCC 172, that the State derives its power to enter into a contract under Article 298 of the Constitution of India and has the right to decide whether to enter into a contract with a person or not subject only to the requirement of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After having found that there is only one responsive bidder, the tendering authority can take a decision to cancel the tender and invite fresh tender in order to make the bidding process more competitive then such a decision cannot be held to have suffered from any arbitrariness or unreasonable. 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and another, reported in [2020] 16 SCC 489, that the decision to cancel a tender process is purely an administrative decision and it is in the realm of contract. While rejecting the tender, the authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it is the State or an agency or an instrumentality of the State within the ambit and meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. These kinds of decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. If reasons are to be given at every stage, then the commercial activities of the State would come to a grinding halt. The State must be given sufficient leeway in this regard. It has been further observed that the State or its agencies/instrumentalities are entitled to give reason in the counter to the writ petition. 21. It has been held in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust, reported in [1994] 3 SCC 552, that the termination is not a quasi-judicial act by any stretch of imagination and it is not necessary to observe the principles of natural justice and the decision to terminate a tender process is also not an administrative or executive act to attract the duty to act fairly. As has been noticed above, the respondent authorities in this counter affidavit have given the reasons behind cancelling the competitive bidding process initiated by the 1st NIT and, as such, the Office Order no. 05 dated 02.01.2015 does not call for any interference. 22. The petitioner is not entitled to seek a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the Mining contract Area no. 1 in his favour just because he was the lone bidder and had emerged as the responsive one also since the tendering authority is well within its right to cancel the bidding process on the ground of difficulties. The petitioner does not have any enforceable right in that regard. Similar is the position in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 2. The competent authority in the respondent Forest Department had taken the decision not to proceed within the bidding process initiated by the 1st NIT for the reasons discussed above. This Court does not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with such a decision to cancel the bidding process initiated by the 1st NIT and to start a fresh bidding process by the 2nd NIT after removing the difficulties found in the previous bidding process. 23. An interim order dated 03.04.2017 was passed in the writ petition, W.P. [C] no. 1966/2017 to the effect that the respondent authorities shall not to finalise the settlement in respect of the Mining Contract Area no. 1 and Mining Contract Area no. 2. The 2nd NIT dated 17.03.2017 was published inviting bids for settlement of the two Mining Contract Areas in question for a period of 5 [five] years. As on date, the period of 5 [five] years is about to expire. During the period from 17.03.2017 till date, the ground situations have undergone substantial changes. The Mining Contract Areas in question were sought to be settled by the 2nd NIT dated 17.03.2017 by fixing certain Government values. As on date, the period of 5 [five] years is about to expire. During the period from 17.03.2017 till date, the ground situations have undergone substantial changes. The Mining Contract Areas in question were sought to be settled by the 2nd NIT dated 17.03.2017 by fixing certain Government values. In such view of the matter, the respondent authorities shall have to take a conscious decision as to whether it is appropriate and feasible at this distant point of time to proceed with the bidding process initiated by the 2nd NIT with the Government values fixed on 17.03.2017 and in the event a conscious decision is taken not to proceed with the bidding process initiated by the 2nd NIT then the respondent authorities are at liberty to take such decision upon due consideration and thereafter, may proceed with a fresh competitive bidding process, if so advised, after cancelling the competitive bidding process initiated by the 2nd NIT, since no right has been crystallized in favour of any of the bidders who responded to the 2nd NIT till date. 24. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons stated above, I find that the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2611/2016 is bereft of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. For the similar reason, I find no merit in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1966/2017 and consequently, the same is also dismissed by recalling the interim order dated 03.04.2017, subject to the observations made above. The EMDs deposited by the petitioner while participating in the competitive bidding process pursuant to the 1st NIT, if still retained by the respondent authorities, shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.