JUDGEMENT : By invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition challenging inter alia a decision communicated to it vide a letter bearing reference no. NTPC/BgTPP/C&M/CS/3826 dated 05.11.2019 whereby it has been informed that the bidding process initiated by the Bidding Document no. BgTPP/C&M/CS/3826 dated 07.05.2019 has been closed and also the decision communicated to it by a letter bearing no. NTPC/Bg/TPP/C&M/CS/3826 dated 05.12.2019 whereby it has been informed that the bidding process has been annulled as per Clause 12.0 of the Invitation For Bids [IFB]. Besides seeking setting aside of the said two impugned decisions taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has also sought for a direction to settle the Contract-Work in its favour as it had emerged as the successful bidder in the bidding process initiated for the said Contract-Work by the Bidding Document [supra]. 2. The background events leading to the institution of the writ petition can be exposited, in brief, as follows :- 2.1. The respondent no. 1 i.e. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited [NTPC Ltd.] [hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent Corporation’ and/or ‘NTPC’, for brevity] published a Bidding Document bearing BgTPP/C&M/CS/3826 dated 07.05.2019, whereby, it invited sealed bids from eligible bidders for a contract-work : ‘Construction of Permanent School Building [Higher Secondary School] at NTPC-Bongaingaon for Bongaingaon Thermal Power Project’ [‘the Contract-Work’, for short] situated at Kokrajhar district in the State of Assam. The brief scope of work is as follows :- “Construction of permanent school building [higher secondary school] including Civil and Finishing, Internal Electrification, Plumbing & Sanitary Works at Township of NTPC BgTPP, Salakati as per BOQ, Specifications, Terms and Conditions, Drawings and Instruction of Engineer-in-Charge.” 2.2. Responding to the said Bidding Document dated 07.05.2019, 5 [five] nos. of bidders including the petitioner herein, participated in the bidding process by submitting their bids. The bidding process prescribed for qualifying requirements for bidders. The tendering authority, that is, the respondent Corporation as qualifying requirements for bidders had also set forth technical criteria and financial criteria. 2.3. After the last date of submission of bids was over, the bids of the 5 [five] participating bidders were opened and a tender committee constituted for the purpose, evaluated the bids of all the 5 [five] bidders. The tendering authority, that is, the respondent Corporation as qualifying requirements for bidders had also set forth technical criteria and financial criteria. 2.3. After the last date of submission of bids was over, the bids of the 5 [five] participating bidders were opened and a tender committee constituted for the purpose, evaluated the bids of all the 5 [five] bidders. The names of the 5 [five] participating bidders are as under : S. No. Bidder Name 1 M/s Credible Engineering Construction Projects Ltd 2 M/s J.K. Trade & Commerce [the petitioner] 3 Maniraj Brahma 4 M/s Sanwarmal Khetawat 5 M/s Satyendra Kumar Construction Private Ltd. 2.4. During the process of evaluation, the bid of one of participating bidders viz. M/s Satyendra Kumar Construction Private Limited was rejected on the ground of non-deposit of fee. The bid of another bidder viz. Maniraj Brahma was also rejected finding his bid technically non-responsive. Bids of the remaining 3 [three] bidders were found technically responsive and accordingly, the financial bids of the said 3 [three] technically responsive bidders were opened. The petitioner was one of the 3 [three] bidders whose technical bid was found responsive. 2.5. After evaluation of the financial bids, the petitioner was informed by a communication dated 14.08.2019 by the respondent Corporation whereby the respondent Corporation requested the presence of the petitioner’s authorized competent representative at the office of the respondent Corporation on any working day on or before 16.08.2019 for techno-commercial discussion/negotiation on its offer submitted for the Contract-Work. 2.6. In response to the communication dated 14.08.2019, the petitioner attended the office of the respondent Corporation on 16.08.2019 and a discussion was held at the office. During the course of the discussion, according to the petitioner, the respondent authorities requested the petitioner to negotiate on the quoted rate offered by the petitioner and after discussion, the petitioner agreed for a discount of 1% on the quoted rates of DSR [Delhi Schedule of Rates]. Thereafter also, the petitioner on request of the respondent authorities attended the office of the respondent Corporation on 21.08.2019. The petitioner in order to justify the rates it had offered for the Contract-Work, also submitted documents like work orders issued for similar nature of works by different authorities. The petitioner on 02.09.2019 had submitted in detail with regard to justification of its rate offered for the Contract-Work in question. The petitioner in order to justify the rates it had offered for the Contract-Work, also submitted documents like work orders issued for similar nature of works by different authorities. The petitioner on 02.09.2019 had submitted in detail with regard to justification of its rate offered for the Contract-Work in question. Out of the 3 [three] financially responsive bidders, the petitioner has claimed that it was the lowest bidder [L-1]. 2.7. When the petitioner was legitimately expecting that it would be offered the Contract-Work being the L-1 bidder, the respondent authorities in the NTPC by the impugned communication dated 05.11.2019 had informed the petitioner that the bidding process initiated for the Contract-Work by the Bidding Document dated 07.05.2019 had been closed and the petitioner was returned the bank guarantee dated 23.05.2019 for the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-, submitted by it as the Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] for the Contract-Work. 3. Aggrieved by the closure of the bidding process in such a manner, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent authorities on 19.11.2019 alleging that such closure in an unilateral manner and without any justification amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and requested the respondent NTPC authorities to recall the communication dated 05.11.2019 and to finalize the bidding process in favour of the petitioner since it was the L-1 bidder. In reference to the representation dated 19.11.2019, the respondent authorities by the impugned communication dated 05.12.2019 informed the petitioner that the bidding process has been annulled in terms of Clause 12.0 of the Invitation For Bids [IFB]. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the reliefs, mentioned above. 5. I have heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had qualified in the bidding process at both the stages, that is, the technical criteria evaluation stage and the financial criteria evaluation stage. Out of the 3 [three] participating bidders, whose bids were found both technically and financially responsive, the petitioner had emerged as the lowest bidder [L-1] and as such, it had become the successful bidder. Out of the 3 [three] participating bidders, whose bids were found both technically and financially responsive, the petitioner had emerged as the lowest bidder [L-1] and as such, it had become the successful bidder. But the respondent authorities by the two impugned communications dated 05.11.2019 and 05.12.2019, had arbitrarily closed/annulled the bidding process by taking resort to Clause 12.0 of the Bidding Document. It is his submission that such action on the part of the respondent authorities clearly demonstrates arbitrariness. After evaluation of the bids when the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder in the form of L-1, the petitioner was invited by the respondent authorities by the communication dated 14.08.2019 to have a discussion on the rates offered by the petitioner for the Contract-Work. The petitioner after discussion, had offered a discount which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was justified. Mr. Hussain has further referred to the communication dated 02.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authorities to submit that the petitioner had explained in detail as to why the rate offered by the petitioner for the Contract-Work was justified. It is his submission that a number of other tendering authorities, similar to the respondent Corporation, had awarded a number of contract works to the petitioner at rates like the rate which it had offered to the respondent Corporation for the Contract-Work. It is his further contention that once the price bids of the bidders are opened, it is not permissible for a tendering authority to cancel the bidding process. A legitimate expectation arises in favour of the successful bidder in such a situation and such legitimate expectation could not have been negated by the tendering authority in an arbitrary manner and without disclosing any valid reason. 6.1. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Hussain has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and another vs. Shishir Realty Private Limited and another etc., reported in [2021] 14 Scale 378; a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in Sampad Samal vs. State of Odisha and others; reported in AIR 2017 Ori 33 ; and a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Brahler ICS India Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India & others; reported in 2002 [62] DRJ 470; 7. In response, Mr. In response, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no requirement on the part of the respondent authorities to record any reason to recall/cancel a tender process. Discretion is available to a tendering authority to decide as to whether it would accept an offer or not to accept an offer. The rates offered by the bidders in response to a tender notice is a relevant consideration and when it is found that the rates received in response to the tender notice are at variance with the rates offered in similar nature of works then a discretion is available to the tendering authority to cancel a tender process. It is his submission that the price factor is a relevant aspect in taking such a decision. As the respondent Corporation is an instrumentality of the State, it is a paramount duty to safeguard the interests of the State Exchequer. He has further contended that mere emergence of the petitioner as the successful bidder in the tender process has not created any right in favour of the petitioner to prefer this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent Corporation to enter into a contractual relationship with petitioner. It is open for the respondent Corporation to satisfy itself about the reasonableness of the rates quoted by the bidders’ vis-à-vis the prevailing market rates. In that respect, he has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the statements made in the Paragraph 8 thereof. He has submitted that upon evaluation of the rates, the respondent Corporation had found even the revised rates offered by the petitioner much higher and secondly, similar nature of contract works were found awarded at much lower rates more or less around the same time period. 7.1. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sahewalla has relied in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Ravinder Kumar and another; reported in [2015] 15 SCC 545. 8. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. 8. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The relevant events leading to the institution of this writ petition have already been narrated hereinabove. There is also no dispute to the fact that in the bidding process, the petitioner had emerged as a responsive bidder and its offered rate was the lowest [L-1] amongst the 3 [three] participating responsive bidders. 10. The Bidding Document had prescribed the estimated cost [INR] for the Contract-Work at Rs. 1049.58 lakhs [excluding GST]. In the bidding process, the bid value quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 14,94,58,431.51 and the same was 28.16% higher than the vetted cost estimate of the entire Contract-Work. 11. The case of the petitioner is that with regard to its rate, consequent to the communication dated 14.08.2019, it had participated in the discussion with the respondent authorities on rates. In the negotiation process, it had forwarded few estimates and a memorandum approved by the Central Public Works Department [CPWD]. Its contention is that the CPWD considered 40% cost index during the year 2018. The petitioner was also awarded with work orders by a number of other Public Sector Undertakings [PSUs] like Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited [HSCL], National Projects Construction Corporation Limited [NPCCL], etc. at rates higher than the rates the petitioner had quoted against the Contract-Work for the respondent Corporation, also a PSU. Since, it had offered valid justification for the rates, it is not open for the respondent Corporation not to accept the offer of the petitioner and to resort to Clause 12.0 of the Bidding Document to cancel the bidding process. 12. On the other hand, the stand that has been taken by the respondent Corporation is to the effect that the rates quoted by the petitioner being 28.16% higher than the vetted cost estimate of the entire project, the petitioner was called for techno-commercial discussion/negotiation and after negotiation, the petitioner had offered to reduce the overall cost by 4.5%. Thereafter, a revised comparison sheet between the vetted estimate and the quoted/revised rate of the petitioner was prepared. Thereafter, a revised comparison sheet between the vetted estimate and the quoted/revised rate of the petitioner was prepared. From the comparison sheet, the tendering committee had found that the revised rate offered by the petitioner was Rs. 14,52,83,236.27 [exclusive of GST] against vetted estimated value of Rs. 11,66,20,260.00 [exclusive of GST] and the petitioner’s revised rate was 24.58% higher than the vetted cost estimate of the entire project. The tender committee was of the view that the revised rates of the BOQ items, offered by the petitioner, were still very high compared to the vetted estimate of the entire project. A stand has also been taken by the respondent Corporation to the effect that the L-1 rate of B-type Quarters for NTPC – Bongaigaon [Price Bids opened on 22.10.2019] floated from SSC-Kaniha was only 4.5% higher to the estimate which was prepared in the same line with the Contract-Work involved in this writ petition. It was in such facts and circumstances, the tender committee recommended for cancellation of the bidding process initiated by the Bidding Document dated 09.05.2019. It is also the stand of the respondent Corporation that the bidding process was cancelled in order to safeguard the public exchequer from huge losses and the bidding process was cancelled in terms of Clause 12.0 of the Bidding Document. 13. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contract by the State or its instrumentalities/agencies is settled by a long line of decisions. It is settled that the Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can exercise the power to examine the decision-making process and in the course of such process, it can examine the legality of the decision but it does not embark on an exercise to examine the soundness of the decision. A bid submitted in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its instrumentalities/agencies are under no obligation to accept. A bidder participating in the tender process cannot insist that his tender should be accepted simply because his tender is the highest or the lowest, depending upon the nature of the tender process whether the contract is for public property or for execution of works on behalf of the State or an instrumentality/agency of the State. A bidder participating in the tender process cannot insist that his tender should be accepted simply because his tender is the highest or the lowest, depending upon the nature of the tender process whether the contract is for public property or for execution of works on behalf of the State or an instrumentality/agency of the State. 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 in an unequal manner or has been meted out a discriminatory treatment or against the public revenue. 14. At this juncture, it is also apt to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in Maa Binda Express Carrier and another vs. Northeast Frontier Railway and others, reported in [2014] 3 SCC 760, with regard to a bidder’s right and the tendering authority’s right in the tender document. Therein, it has been observed in the following manner :- “8. …….While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well-settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers…..” 15. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers…..” 15. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the oft-quoted decision in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, reported in [1994] 6 SCC 651, that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government or its instrumentalities/agencies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It has been specifically observed therein that there are inherent limitations in exercise of the power of judicial review. The Government or instrumentalities/agencies of the State are guardians of the finances of the State and they are expected to protect the financial interests of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government or its instrumentalities/agencies. But the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution of India have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There is no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government or its instrumentality/agency tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. But the said power is not to be exercised for any collateral purpose. If it is found that the power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power has to be struck down. 16. 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. If after tenders are called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the bidders who have given their tenders, it is found that there is no competition or the rates offered are not justified or are higher than the rates offered for similar nature of works awarded at about the same time or immediately before the time for such consideration, 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. 17. 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. If the tendering authority finds that the rates offered by a responsive bidder is not reasonable in its view, it can take a decision to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders in order to make the bidding process more competitive then such a decision cannot be held to have suffered from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 18. 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 not required to give reasons even if it be a State or an instrumentality/agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. These kinds of decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. It has been held that 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 arena. It has been further observed that the State or its instrumentalities/agencies are entitled to give reason in the counter to the writ petition. 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 was 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. 19. 19. The principle deducible from the decision in South Delhi Municipal Corporation [supra] is to the effect that the tendering authority is well within its right to satisfy itself about the reasonableness of the rates quoted by the bidders keeping in view the prevalent market rates in the area nearby the tendering authority. It is also within the scope of an authority to maintain an internal system for financial checks and to examine the reasonableness of the rates quoted by the bidders by comparing them with the rates at which other similar works were awarded in the recent past in favour of the successful bidders. Such steps are necessary to be carried out for the reason that an instrumentality of the State is also a custodian of public money and its intention has to be aimed at getting the best price. If the actions of the tendering authority towards cancellation of a tender process, are preceded by such factors then the Court in exercise of its power to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere. 20. Reverting back to the fact situation obtaining in the case, though in the impugned communication dated 05.11.2019, the NTPC Limited [the respondent no. 1] had simply informed the petitioner who was the L-1 bidder, that the tender process initiated by the Bidding Document dated 09.05.2019 had been closed, the respondent authorities in its counter affidavit to the writ petition have clearly explained the reasons as to why it arrived at the decision not to award the Contract-Work in favour of the petitioner and took the decision, as have been discussed above, to annul the tender process. As the respondent authorities have disclosed the reasons in the counter affidavit to the writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the non-disclosure of reason at the time of informing the petitioner regarding the closure of the tender process has not vitiated the decision due to the explanations of the reasons provided in the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities had also contained the note-sheet wherein the reasons recorded by the tender committee which resulted in its recommendation for cancellation of the tender process, are available and the said reasons were recorded on 25.10.2019, which was anterior to the impugned communication dated 05.11.2019. 21. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities had also contained the note-sheet wherein the reasons recorded by the tender committee which resulted in its recommendation for cancellation of the tender process, are available and the said reasons were recorded on 25.10.2019, which was anterior to the impugned communication dated 05.11.2019. 21. In Sampad Samal [supra], it was held that the exercise of the right to reject by the tendering authority without assigning any reason, can be justified only when there is proper and adequate ground for passing an order of cancellation. In the case in hand, this Court has already found that the decision to cancel the bidding process was arrived at on 25.10.2019 and the reasons behind taking such a decision were recorded in the note sheet of the meaning of the tender committee dated 25.10.2019. Though either in the impugned communication dated 05.11.2019 or in the impugned communication dated 05.12.2019 no reason was assigned for cancellation of the tender process, the respondent authorities have disclosed the reasons behind the decision to cancel the bidding process in its counter affidavit to the writ petition and those reasons were recorded by them at the meeting of the tender committee held on 25.10.2019. As such, the decision in Sampad Samal [supra] is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances obtaining in the decision in Brahler ICS India Pvt. Ltd. [supra] are found not similar to the present case and as such, the ratio of that decision is not necessary to be dilated upon. 22. In The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited [supra], the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra [‘the CIDCO’, for short] called for a tender for lease of land within its jurisdiction, for purposes of development of necessary infrastructure such as Hotels, etc., around Navi Mumbai Airport. The respondent, M/s Metropolis Hotels was one of the bidders. On 07.08.2008, the CIDCO issued a letter of allotment in favour of the respondent it being the highest bidder, and the respondent was accordingly allotted Plot No. 5 for construction of a five star hotel. On 29.03.2010, the CIDCO demarcated the said plot forming Plot No. 5 and Plot No. 5A. On 07.08.2008, the CIDCO issued a letter of allotment in favour of the respondent it being the highest bidder, and the respondent was accordingly allotted Plot No. 5 for construction of a five star hotel. On 29.03.2010, the CIDCO demarcated the said plot forming Plot No. 5 and Plot No. 5A. As per request of the respondent, M/s Metropolis Hotels, Plot No. 5A was assigned to another respondent, M/s Shishir Realty Private Limited with approval from the CIDCO. On 30.03.2010, the CIDCO executed 2 [two] separate lease deeds in respect of the 2 [two] plots i.e. Plot No. 5 and Plot No. 5A. M/s Shishir Realty Private Limited with permission from the CIDCO, mortgaged Plot No. 5A and obtained loan for development of the said plot for commercial-cum-residential use, thereby, creating third party rights. On receipt of complaints regarding irregularities, the State Government caused an enquiry and based on such enquiry, show cause notices dated 06.12.2010 were issued to the respondents-lessees as to why the lease deeds should not be cancelled for breach of tender conditions. Thereafter, by an order dated 16.03.2011, the CIDCO cancelled the sale deeds. It was in the aforesaid backdrop of events, the decision in The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited [supra] was rendered holding that a blanket claim by the State claiming loss of public money cannot be used to forego contractual obligations, especially when it is not based on any evidence or examination. Unlike the decision in The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited [supra] where the parties had executed lease deeds incorporating therein the rights, liabilities and obligations of the parties inter se, in the case in hand, the parties had not entered into any contractual relationship and thus, the ratio in The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited [supra] is not found applicable to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand. 23. As has already been stated above, the respondent authorities in its counter affidavit have given the reasons behind cancelling the bidding process initiated by the Bidding Document dated 07.05.2019 and as such, the impugned decision contained in the communication dated 05.11.2019 and the impugned decision contained in the communication dated 05.12.2019 do not call for any interference. 23. As has already been stated above, the respondent authorities in its counter affidavit have given the reasons behind cancelling the bidding process initiated by the Bidding Document dated 07.05.2019 and as such, the impugned decision contained in the communication dated 05.11.2019 and the impugned decision contained in the communication dated 05.12.2019 do not call for any interference. Consequently, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are found bereft of any merit in view of the discussion and the reasons mentioned above. As a result, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are not sustainable. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to cost.