JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Since the both instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, the above-numbered SBCWP No. 6020/2023, was tagged with SBCWP No. 5914/2023. Arguments in both petitions were heard together and the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6020/2023: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of directing: (i) The respondents be directed to extend the contract of the petitioner for a period of one year in due consonance with amendment so brought to Rule 36(5) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 respectively. (ii) The e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 (Annex- 5) for award of ERCC contract so issued by the respondents for the location of Rishabhdev, Khairwada DISTRICT Udaipur be quashed and set aside. (iii) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the litigation may also be passed in the favour of the petitioner.” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5914/2023: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of directing: (i) The respondents be directed to extend the contract of the petitioner for a period of one year in due consonance with amendment so brought to Rule 36(5) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 respectively. (ii) The e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for award of ERCC contract so issued by the respondents for the location of the Phalodi, Bap, Lohavat and Bapini (Denok, Barsingo ka Bas, Aau, Suwap and Santosh Nagar (Ishru) District Jodhpur be quashed and set aside. (iii) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the litigation may also be awarded in the favour of the petitioner.” 3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being taken from the above-numbered SBCWP No. 6020/2023. 4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondents issued a tender for award of ERCC Contract for collection of Excess Royalty-cum-DMFT, RSMET & other fees in relation to the excavation of Mineral Masonry Stone taking place in the Mines situated at Tehsil Rishabhdev & Khairwada, District Udaipur. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder, and accordingly, a sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was granted vide order dated 26.03.2021; whereupon, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 4 on 26.03.2021 itself; term of the contract was from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023. 4.1 The respondents, in light of the amendments so brought in Rule 36(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 2017’), passed an order on 10.01.2022, formulating the guidelines for extension of the contract, keeping into consideration the Covid-19 pandemic. 4.2. Thereafter, the respondents issued an e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for grant of ERCC contract, and the auction was scheduled to be held on 13.04.2023; however, now the auction has been scheduled to be held in the first week of May. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 20.03.2023 to the respondent no. 4 seeking extension of the contract in question; the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 29.03.2023, extended the contract period for 90 days or till execution of a new contract, and further, the contract price was increased by 10% of the original bid amount; subsequently, a supplementary deed was entered on 31.03.2023 between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. 5. As averred in the writ petitions, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforementioned e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 issued by the respondents, have preferred these petitions, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 6. 4. 5. As averred in the writ petitions, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforementioned e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 issued by the respondents, have preferred these petitions, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents extended the contract period of the petitioner only for a period of 90 days or till execution of a new contract, but without any justifiable reason, the respondents are not extending the contract period to the extent of one year, which is arbitrary and illegal. 6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 36 (5) of the Rule of 2017 provides for extension of the contract for a period of one year, and therefore the impugned action of the respondents is clearly violative of the provisions as contained in the Rules of 2017. 6.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents vide order dated 30.03.2022 have already extended the contract period of 41 other similarly situated contractors for a period of one year, and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been given the same treatment. It was further submitted that the petitioners have also submitted the consent letter -cum- affidavit for extension of the contract for a period of one year, but the respondents, without taking the same into due consideration, took the impugned action, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel referred to the interim orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the following cases: (a) M/s Konasth Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6132/2023, dated 20.04.2023 (b) M/s Shri Balaji Constructions vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6421/2023, dated 27.04.2023 (c) M/s Green Star Minerals vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6428/2023, dated 26.04.2023 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the amended Rule 36 (5) of the Rules, 2017, the word ‘may’ was used, which clearly means that the extension of the ERCC Contract is discretionary in nature, and such discretionary power as per the Rules is vested with the State Government, and thus, it was not mandatory for the State to extend the period of the contract, for a period of one year, as claimed by the present petitioners. 7.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners failed to submit the requisite application 15 days prior to expiry of the original contract period, as also failed to deposit 10% of the increased amount within the stipulated period, and therefore, on that count alone, the extension as sought for by the petitioners does not deserve to be granted. 7.2. It was also submitted that the respondents however, extended the ERCC Contract of the petitioners for a period upto 90 days or until the new contract is executed by the way of agreement, and thus, the petitioners cannot claim the extension of the contract for a particular period, as a matter of right. 7.3. It was further submitted that the interim orders referred on behalf of the petitioners are not applicable to the present case, as in those matters, reply was not filed on the date of passing of the interim orders, while in the present case, reply to the petitions has been filed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, as also perused the interim orders referred on behalf of the petitioners. 9. This Court observes that the petitioners’ ERCC Contract was valid from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023, and thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic, a proviso was incorporated in Rule 36 (5) of the Rules, 2017. The respondent no. 4 extended the petitioners’ contract for a period of 90 days or till execution of the new contract. Meanwhile, the respondents issued an e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for awarding the ERCC Contract. 10. The respondent no. 4 extended the petitioners’ contract for a period of 90 days or till execution of the new contract. Meanwhile, the respondents issued an e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for awarding the ERCC Contract. 10. This Court further observes that it was provided in the new proviso added to Rule 36 (5) of the Rules, 2017, that “period of existing contract may be extended by the Government for a period upto one year subject to condition that the contractor shall pay ten percent of increased amount to the existing contract amount and a rider agreement shall be executed within a period of fifteen days from the dated of receipt of the order of extension or before expiry of the original contract period whichever is earlier.” 10.1. The Court also observes that it is clear from the aforesaid Rule that extension of period of the contract lies well within the discretionary power of the State Government, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, the extension of the contract in question, that too for a particular period of time, more particularly, when the contract period was already extended by the respondents for a certain period i.e. 90 days or till execution of a new contract. 11. This Court further observes that the petitioners failed to submit the requisite application, as also failed to deposit 10% of the increased amount, within the stipulated period. Therefore, while keeping into due consideration the fact that it was discretionary for the State to extend the contract, this Court does not find any reason to sustain the claim of the petitioners in the present petitions. 12. The interim orders, as referred on behalf of the petitioners, do not render any assistance to their case. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does find any ground to be made out, so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 14. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.