JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- i. the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 (An.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii. the respondents may be directed to further process bid of the petitioner from the stage of opening of financial bid and to issue the letter of intent to the petitioner to enable it to undertake production; iii. any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner v. the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No 2 Director, Mines and geology, Udaipur issued a Notice Inviting Tender (herein after referred to as NIT for short) dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure-1) for various blocks of Limestone in District, Nagaur, Rajasthan as per which, an applicant was required to have net-worth of Rs 4,03,14,624/-, and since the petitioner was having the net-worth of aforesaid amount therefore, the petitioner company participated in the auction proceedings and submitted the bid and all the necessary documents. The petitioner also deposited bid security in the form of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs 40,31,463, and upon being found eligible, the bid was considered and examined and the petitioner-Company was found technically qualified and, thus, accordingly it was rated as technically qualified bidder as evident from the communication issued by the Director, Mines and Geology Udaipur, dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure-2) for the Block No.13, wherein the name of the petitioner company was shown at item No.8. 3. As per the aforementioned letter (Annexure No.2), the Initial Price Offer (in short I.P.O.) of the above-mentioned blocks was to be opened on 21.08.2019. Thereafter the price offer was opened by the concerned agency and in that process the bid of the petitioner was found to be the highest final price where the petitioner's offer was 25.60% and accordingly a declaration was made on 05.09.2019 and thus, the petitioner was declared as a 'Preferred Bidder' on 05.09.2019 as per declaration dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure 3). 4. 4. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2015) provides that an amount equal to 0.50% of the value of the estimated resources shall be the upfront payment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 provides that the upfront payment shall be payable to the State Government in three equal installments of 10%, 10% and 80% as specified in the Tender Document and shall be adjusted in full at the earliest against the amount to be paid under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 on commencement of production of mineral as specified in the Tender Document. The petitioner was called upon to pay the first installment and accordingly had paid which is evident from the communication dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure-4). 5. According to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015 which provides that the Preferred Bidder shall submit the first installment (i.e.10%) of upfront payment as per Rule 11 of the Rules of 2015 and the petitioner has made the payment to the tune of Rs.20,15,732 (Rupees Twenty lacs fifteen thousand seven hundred and thirty two). 6. The petitioner made the payment of the first installment and the financial bid was also found to be correct and the highest, accordingly, the petitioner was declared as a Preferred Bidder. In these circumstances, as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, 2015 the State Government was required to issue a letter of intent (LOI for short) to the petitioner who was adjudged as a Preferred Bidder. 7. However, the State Government issued the office order dated 17.12.2019 (Annex.5) and in view of clause 14.11 of the Tender Document rejected the bid of the petitioner. The rejection was made on the ground that reserve price for the block in question was 25.51% and the offer received was only 25.60%, which was not considered adequate in the interest of revenue generated for the State. 8. Hence, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure-5), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, hence this writ petition. 9. Learned senior counsel R.N Mathur for the petitioner submitted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the rules of 2015 provides that "upon receipt of the first installment of the upfront payment, the State Government shall issue a letter of intent to the Preferred Bidder”, and the petitioner was already declared as a Preferred Bidder. 9. Learned senior counsel R.N Mathur for the petitioner submitted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the rules of 2015 provides that "upon receipt of the first installment of the upfront payment, the State Government shall issue a letter of intent to the Preferred Bidder”, and the petitioner was already declared as a Preferred Bidder. Thus, it is wrong on the part of the State Government to reject the bid of the petitioner company which was found to be technically correct and the highest too, thus petitioner company was entitled to the Letter of Intent which is not given to the petitioner company. 10. Learned senior counsel Mr R.N Mathur for the petitioner also submitted that Clause 14.11 of the Tender Document is required to be exercised for lawful purposes but in the present case even when the petitioner's offer was examined; the bid was also found to be up to the mark at a technical level and the highest too, and the petitioner company was also declared as a Preferred Bidder, despite the same the bid of the petitioner was canceled. He further submitted that the petitioner company was also called upon to pay the first installment, which too was paid by the petitioner company, Therefore, invocation of the clause 14.11 of the Tender Document was wrong. Thus, the petitioner’s bid/offer has wrongly and illegally been rejected. The clause 14.11 of the Tender Document is reproduced herein below:- 14.11. - Rejection of bids 14.11.1-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Tender Document, the State Government reserves the right to reject any bid and/or to annul the tender process and reject all bids at any time without any liability or any obligation for such acceptance, rejection or annulment, and without assigning any reasons thereof. 14.11.2-In case such cancellation is pursuant to non-compliance by the relevant Bidders vis-a-vis submissions of bid then the State Government reserves the right to appropriate the relevant Bid Security submitted by such non-complaint Bidders. 14.11.3-The State Government reserves the right not to proceed with the tender process at any time, without notice or liability, and to reject any bid without assigning any reasons. 14.11.3-The State Government reserves the right not to proceed with the tender process at any time, without notice or liability, and to reject any bid without assigning any reasons. 14.11.4-Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the State Government reserves the right to reject any bid on any criteria specified in this Tender Document, including without limitation, the following: (a) bids have not been submitted with all the information and details listed in this Tender Document. (b) bid is not in conforming to the terms of Clause 8.1(A) of this Tender Document. (c) bids have been submitted without Bid Security or period of validity. (d) bids have otherwise not been submitted in accordance with the Tender Document." 11. Learned senior counsel Mr R.N Mathur for the petitioner further submitted that the rejection of the bid has been made on the ground that in respect of 4 other blocks, the bid received was more than 50% whereas for the block in question the bid received was only slight above the reserved price. He also submitted that there is an apparent fallacy in the conclusion of the respondents while passing the impugned order because the items referred in the impugned order with which comparison has been made were quite large in size as Item No.1 described as 3B1(b) is admeasuring 247.8711 hectares; Item No.2 Block 3B1(a) is admeasuring 267.6288 hectares; Item No.3 is in respect of Block Harima Peetasar Block is admeasuring 357.01 hectares; and Item No.4 is in respect of Block No. 3B(2) is admeasuring 470 hectares, whereas the size of the block in question was lesser as it was admeasuring only 16.28 hectares, thus the block in question was not open to be compared with such large sizes of blocks. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that all the four blocks are meant for captive use of cement industry thus, the blocks which have been compared were of quite large in size and their production was also large and therefore, they could afford to give higher price offer and so far as the reserve prices of the blocks which have been compared have also been mentioned in the impugned order i.e. 7%, 5%, 10% and 10%, whereas in respect of the block in question the reserve price was 25.51%. 12. 12. Learned senior counsel Mr R.N Mathur for the petitioner further submitted that the term 'reserve price' has been explained in Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015 provides that “value of mineral despatched shall be an amount equal to the product of (i) mineral despatched in a month and (ii) sale price of mineral (Grade-wise & State-wise) as published by the Indian Bureau of Mines (in short IBM) for such month of despatch.” Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the reserve price is determined on the basis of mineral despatched in a month and its sale price as published by the IBM for such month of dispatch and since the blocks which have been compared are quite large therefore, their monthly dispatch is also very high in comparison to the block in question so they can afford to give a higher bid and the petitioner company cannot. 13. Learned senior counsel Mr R.N Mathur for the petitioner also submitted that the bids were invited for the block in question and the reserve price was 25.51% and the petitioner company quoted its bid as 25.60% which was above the reserve price. He further submitted that since it was a small block there were less users of said block as the allotment is made for captive use. 14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Rule 10 (2) of Rules, 2015 postulates that the Government shall issue a letter of intent to a Preferred Bidder as the petitioner was declared as a Preferred Bidder. He further submitted that in these circumstances, the Government ought to issue a letter of intent. He further submitted that since the legislature has used ".....The Government shall issue a letter of intent to a Preferred Bidder…." thereby no discretion is left with the Government, Therefore, the impugned order is untenable and has been passed without jurisdiction. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the reason for rejection of the bid that it would cause loss to the revenue of the State cannot be the sole criteria to cancel the bid and deny the LOI as in the instant case the impugned order has been passed on wrong grounds. Therefore, the invocation of Clause 14.11 of Tender Document is per se illegal. 16. Therefore, the invocation of Clause 14.11 of Tender Document is per se illegal. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the Tender Document issued by the respondents under clause 8B(c), the second round of e-auction has been laid down wherein, it has been said that the qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer, shall be declared as ‘Preferred Bidder’ immediately on conclusion of the e-auction and upon successful completion of the e-auction, the petitioner was declared as the Preferred Bidder vide communication dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure-3) and thus, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass the impugned order while canceling the bid. He further submitted that in the Tender Document under clause 10.1 pertaining to declaration of Successful Bidder and grant of mining lease, the petitioner ought to have been issued the Letter of Intent (LOI), as the petitioner was declared the Preferred Bidder and had duly deposited the first installment of the upfront payment which is 10% of the total amount, but despite that, instead of issuing the LOI, the respondents chose to cancel the bid on whimsical grounds. Clause 10.1 of the Tender Document for E-Auction is reproduced herein below : “10. Declaration of Successful Bidder and grant of mining lease Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Auction Rules, the mining lease shall be granted to the Successful Bidder in the following manner: 10.1. Issuance of letter of intent: A letter of intent shall be issued by the State Government to the Preferred Bidder upon payment of the first installment of the Upfront Payment which is INR 20,15,732.00 (Indian Rupees Twenty Lakh Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-Two Only) 10.2…...” 17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under the clause 14.7.2 of the Tender Document, although the State Government reserves the right to reject any bid and appropriate an entire bid security, but the same was subject to fulfillment of three conditions as laid down in the Tender Document but in the instant case, none of the three conditions stand fulfilled and thus, the State Government has wrongly exercised their right to reject the bid in question. Clause 14.7.2 of the Tender Document is reproduced hereunder:- “14.7. Verification by the State Government and disqualification 14.7.1 xxx 14.7.2. Clause 14.7.2 of the Tender Document is reproduced hereunder:- “14.7. Verification by the State Government and disqualification 14.7.1 xxx 14.7.2. The State Government reserves the right to reject any bid, and appropriate the entire Bid Security if: (a) at any time, a misrepresentation is made or uncovered, (b) the Bidder does not provide, within the time specified by the State Government, the supplemental information sought by the State Government for evaluation of the bid, or (c) any act or omission of the Bidder results in violation of or noncompliance with the Act, the rules there under, this Tender Document, or any other document referred therein or issued pursuant thereto or any Applicable Law relevant for the tender process. 14.7.3……..” 18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in Clause 14.7.2 of the Tender Document, various conditions have been laid down where the State Government can reject the bids but in the instant case, the order impugned dated 17.12.2019 could not have been passed as the stage of passing or rejecting the bid had crossed, as the petitioner had been duly declared as the Preferred Bidder by the respondents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the Mineral Auction Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2015’) and submitted that under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015, it has been specifically laid down that the Preferred Bidder shall have to submit the first installment being 10% of the upfront payment and after receipt of the first installment of the upfront payment, the State Government shall issue a Letter of Intent to the Preferred Bidder. He also submitted that the petitioner had made the payment of the first installment of the upfront payment on 19.09.2019, and thus, immediately thereafter, the State Government was under an obligation to issue the Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner, but while using the unfettered power bestowed upon them, the State Government chose to reject the bid. Rule 10.1 and 10.2 are reproduced hereunder:- “10. Grant of Mining Lease.- (1) The preferred bidder shall submit the first instalment being ten per cent. of the upfront payment as per rule 11. (2) Upon receipt of the first instalment of the upfront payment, the State Government shall issue a letter of intent to the preferred bidder. (3)………….” 19. Rule 10.1 and 10.2 are reproduced hereunder:- “10. Grant of Mining Lease.- (1) The preferred bidder shall submit the first instalment being ten per cent. of the upfront payment as per rule 11. (2) Upon receipt of the first instalment of the upfront payment, the State Government shall issue a letter of intent to the preferred bidder. (3)………….” 19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of right to principles of natural justice, as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 by the respondent No.2 and thus, on this ground itself, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 20. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a bare look at the impugned order dated 17.12.2019, reflects that the first auction process was initiated by the respondents for Block No -13 of 4 GII A near Village Khivsar District Nagour for the area of 16.28 hectares, however, no bids were received in pursuance of NIT dated 06.03.2019 and therefore, the bid process was canceled and thereafter, the second auction process was initiated vide NIT dated 02.07.2019 whereby, the reserve price was kept equal to the reserve price which was kept in the earlier NIT dated 06.03.2019 as 25.51% and thus, the same shows that the respondents after taking the conscious decision in regard to the reserve price, had issued the present NIT dated 02.07.2019 and therefore, the respondents cannot take a U-turn and reject the bid on the ground that there would be a huge revenue loss caused to the State on account of the low bid price in comparison to the reserve price fixed as 25.51%. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents had generated a time schedule in the Tender Document under clause 12 and the time schedule was duly followed by the State Government up-till Sr.No.14 in regard to the payment of the first installment (10% of the upfront payment) by the Preferred Bidder for the mining lease) which was scheduled on 24.09.2019 and the petitioner had duly paid the first installment, however, subsequent to that the State Government failed to follow the schedule as laid down in the Rules of 2015. He further submitted that as per the schedule, the respondent-State ought to have issued the Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner on or before 01.10.2019 but the Letter of intent was not issued in favour of the petitioner and after passage of about more than two and a half months, the respondents vide order dated 17.12.2019, chose to reject the bid. 22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that under Rule 9(9)(iii) of the Rules of 2015, it has been laid down that a qualified bidder who submits the final price offer, shall be declared as Preferred Bidder immediately upon the conclusion of the auction. The respondent-State found the petitioner’s final price offer to be the highest and after recording their satisfaction, the petitioner was declared as the Preferred Bidder. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner derived valuable right as soon as his bid was accepted and found to be offering the highest final price and subsequently declared the petitioner as a Preferred Bidder and thus, after having attained valuable right in his favour, the respondent-State cannot deprive the petitioner from its right and thus, the impugned order deserved to be quashed and set aside. Rule 9(9)iii of the Rules of 2015 is reproduced hereunder:- “9. Bidding Process.- (1)……….. (9) Where the total number of technically qualified bidders is three or more, the auction process shall proceed to the second round of auction which shall be held in the following manner, namely:- (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) The qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer shall be declared as the “preferred bidder” immediately on conclusion of the auction.” 23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was called upon by the respondent-State to deposit the first installment of the upfront payment which was duly deposited by the petitioner and duly accepted by the respondent-State and thus, the respondent-State is left with no discretion and option but to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner as laid down in the Rules of 2015. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. Reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 . In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. Reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “21. This rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14. It is now well settled as a result of the decisions of this Court in E.P. Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0380/1973 : (1974) ILLJ 172SC and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India MANU/SC/0133/1978 : [1978]2SCR 621 that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory : it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory.” The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. vs. Ram Bahagat reported in AIR 2002 SC 2914 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “16. Having regard to the well settled principle of law as in Yadav (supra), the decision to terminate by reason of a presumption as noticed above, we cannot but lend concurrence to the conclusion of the High Court that the action is purely and surely arbitrary in nature. Arbitrariness is an anti-thesis to rule of law: equity: fair play and justice contract of employment there may be but it cannot be devoid of the basic principles of the concept of justice. Arbitrariness is an anti-thesis to rule of law: equity: fair play and justice contract of employment there may be but it cannot be devoid of the basic principles of the concept of justice. Justice oriented approach as is the present trend in Indian jurisprudence shall have to read as an in-built requirement of the basic of concept of justice, to wit, the doctrine of nature justice, fairness, equality and rule of law : The letter dated 17th October cannot by any stretch be treated to be an opportunity since it is only on the fourth day that such a letter was sent -the action of the appellant herein stands out to be devoid of any justification, neither it depicts acceptability of the doctrine of natural justice or the concept of fairness -arbitrariness is written large and we confirm the finding of the High Court as also that the learned Trial Judge and the Tribunal as regards issue as noticed above.” The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh and Ors. vs. Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2814 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “20. In our opinion, the Division Bench did not appreciate that the Full Bench had given the Government the limited liberty to bring down the percentage of reservation from 73% to 50% for an interim purpose and did not give any direction with respect to the amalgamation of categories. In our opinion, the amalgamation of two classes of people for reservation would be unreasonable as two different classes are treated similarly which is in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is to "treat similar similarly and to treat different differently." It is well settled that to treat unequals as equals also violates Article 14 of the Constitution.” The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Royal Medical Trust and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 605 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “28. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 605 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “28. It is well settled in law that the ratio of a decision has to be understood regard being had to its context and factual exposition. The ratiocination in an authority is basically founded on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If it is based on a particular fact or the decision of the Court is guided by specific nature of the case, it will not amount to the ratio of the judgment. Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495: (1900-03) ALL ER Rep 1 (HL) has ruled: ... every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.” 24. Per Contra, Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any of the fundamental rights so as to file the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and if any contractual right of the petitioner has been infringed then the petitioner is having a remedy of filing a suit for damages before the competent civil court and not before this Hon'ble Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction 25. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents further submitted that the law in this regard is no more res-integra, and until and unless the auction is finalized and sale is confirmed or agreement is executed, there is no right of any person, even if is the highest bidder. Thus the writ petition is bereft of any merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground. 26. Thus the writ petition is bereft of any merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground. 26. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents also submitted that the conditions and guidelines of the Tender Document is clear, which gives a right to the State Government to cancel the Tender process at any stage an as per clause 14.11.1 of the Tender Document “the State Government reserves the right to reject any bid and/or to annul the Tender process and reject all bids at any time without any liability or any obligation for such acceptance, rejection or annulment, and without assigning any reasons thereof.” He further submitted that the clauses 14.11.2 to 14.11.4 of the Tender Document provide certain conditions whereunder the bids can be canceled and such criteria are not exhaustive and ‘without limitation’ and that the petitioner was well aware about the terms and conditions of the Tender Document and had also gone through the same prior to submitting its application and once the petitioner had participated in the auction process, petitioner ought to have been aware of the discretionary powers of the State. 27. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner was the only single technically qualified bidder, so far as block in question is concerned and no further bids were received qua the block in question. He also submitted that the final price offered by the petitioner was 25.60%, which was only slight above the reserve price fixed i.e. 25.51%. He also submitted that it was clearly specified in the order dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure-3) that the respective order was subject to final approval of the State Government so the petitioner company cannot claim any right against the cancellation of the bid. 28. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents also submitted that the petitioner was not declared as a Successful Bidder and neither was issued the letter of intent. He further submitted that the Preferred Bidder and Successful Bidder have been defined under Rules 2 (d) & 2 (i) of the Rules of 2015 separately because the person who has been declared as a Preferred Bidder does not mean that he becomes the Successful Bidder as well. The person concerned becomes a Successful Bidder post issuance of the letter of intent and not otherwise. The person concerned becomes a Successful Bidder post issuance of the letter of intent and not otherwise. He also submitted that the terms and conditions of the Tender Document were quite clear wherein the power to the State government has been given under Clauses 1.8, 14.11 and 17.2 of the Tender Document to cancel the bid and the petitioner being well aware about the same and after going through the Tender Document, had participated in the process, thus, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance with regard to specific clauses, which were part and parcel of the Tender Document. The sections 2 (d) & 2 (i) of the Rules of 2015 and clauses 1.8 and 17.2 of the Tender Document for E-Auction are reproduced here as under: 2. Definitions.-(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, - (d) “preferred bidder” means the bidder referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of rule 9; (i) “successful bidder” means the bidder as referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 10 or sub-rule (2) of rule 18; 1. Important information 1.8. The issue of this Tender Document does not imply that the State Government is bound to select a Bidder or to appoint the Preferred Bidder as Successful Bidder for the mineral block and the State Government reserves the right to reject all or any of the Bidders or bids without assigning any reason whatsoever. 17.2. Right of State Government 17.2.1. The State Government, in its sole discretion and without incurring any obligation or liability, reserves the right, at any time, to; (a) suspend and/or cancel the tender process and/or amend and/or supplement the tender process or modify the dates or other terms and conditions relating thereto; (b) consult with any Bidder in order to receive clarification or further information; (c) retain any information and/or evidence submitted to the State Government by, on behalf of, and/or in relation to any Bidder; and/or (d) independently verify, disqualify, reject and/or accept any and all submissions or other information and/or evidence submitted by or on behalf of any Bidder. 29. 29. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents further submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015, Grant of Mining Lease is preceded by various stages whereafter the State Government shall execute a Mining Lease Deed in favour of the Successful Bidder', after payment of third installment, thus at this stage, the State Government confers a vested right in favour of a bidder. It is submitted that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, the Preferred Bidder shall submit the first installment being 10% of the upfront payment, which was admittedly done by the petitioner in the instant case, thereafter the State Government was required to issue a letter of Intent, however, by invoking Clause 14.11 of the Tender Document, the bid of the petitioner stood rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has no vested right accrued to it. 30. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents also submitted that public interest should be of paramount consideration and that no one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a mining lease. In the instant case, the petitioner was merely a Preferred Bidder. Therefore, the alleged vested right does not vest in the petitioner thus the instant petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner's contention that rights have accrued to it by virtue of being declared as a Preferred Bidder is frivolous and not accepted. 31. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents further submitted that the impugned Order dated 17.12.2019 is a well reasoned order and was passed while recording that as compared to other areas, the mine in question would not generate sufficient revenue and, thus, it would be in public interest to reject the bid of the petitioner. It is submitted that allotment of the mine in question to the petitioner and the bid price offered by it would have incurred huge revenue loss to the State exchequer, i.e of about Rs.121.618 Crores due to which the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 was issued and petitioner's bid was rightly rejected as individual interest cannot be protected in face of such a huge loss to public exchequer. 32. 32. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents also submitted that the comparative statement given under order dated 17.12.2019 itself reveals that as against the reserve price of 5%, 7% and 10%, a significant increase in percentage in final bid price was received post auction process, where as far as the block in question is concerned, as against the reserve price of 25.51%, the bid of the petitioner was 25.60% only, and the petitioner being the sole bidder, there was no competitive bid, which would result in huge loss to the revenue of the State Government, Hence, the bid process was canceled, for the block in question. He also submitted that the order dated 05.09.2019 whereby the petitioner was declared as a ‘Preferred Bidder' clearly specifies that the same was subject to the final approval of the State Government and no final approval was ever given by the State Government. 33. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents further submitted that to the extent of Clause 14.11 of the Tender Document, it is clear that the State Government has right to reject any bid or annul the Tender Process itself without assigning any reason thereof and further the Clauses 1.8, and 17.2 of the Tender Document are also clear, wherein exclusive right has been given to the State Government to cancel the Bid and the entire process. He further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was not even a Successful Bidder and also no letter of intent was issued in favour of petitioner. Thus no rights had crystallized in favour of petitioner. Thus, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is not sustainable on any of the grounds as raised by the petitioner. 34. Learned senior counsel cum AAG Mr Sandeep Shah for the respondents also submitted that the size of the block as mentioned by the petitioner would not make any difference as for the present block in question after undertaking the geological mapping, the G-2 level exploration was carried out and only after considering the thickness; quality of the limestone and availability of the limestone i.e. grey laminated high grade limestone, the total geological resources of 10.4083 MT limestone with average grade of CaO 47.04% SiO 5.27% and MgO 3.92% has been assessed. He further submitted that it was also found out that the block was a part of large block, namely, 4GIIA. Thus, as against the reserve price fixed in four other blocks being 7%, 5%, 10% and 10% respectively, the reserve price in the present Block was fixed at 25.51% and despite the same that the final Bid price in four blocks, was ranging from 50.05% to 67.94%, and in the present block the final offer bid was just 25.60% i.e. marginally above the reserve price fixed which would cause a great loss to the State exchequer if the final bid submitted by the petitioner was to be accepted by way of issuance of letter of intent. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of JSW Cement Limited vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 12873/2017) The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “As per Rule 9(4)(b)(iii) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015,“the qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer shall be declared as the “preferred bidder” immediately on conclusion of the auction.” Whereas, Rule 10(3) lays down the condition for declaring the preferred bidder as the successful bidder. Rule 10(4) permits an agreement to be signed with the State Government only after all consents, approvals, permits, no-objections and the like as may be required under applicable is obtained. This makes it clear that a preferred bidder does not succeed till he satisfies all the conditions. The condition No.1.8 of the‘ Important Information’ given in the NIT specifically states that the State Government is not bound to select a bidder or to appoint the preferred bidder as the successful bidder. This makes it clear that a preferred bidder does not succeed till he satisfies all the conditions. The condition No.1.8 of the‘ Important Information’ given in the NIT specifically states that the State Government is not bound to select a bidder or to appoint the preferred bidder as the successful bidder. The Same reads: “The issue of this Tender Document does not imply that the State Government is bound to select a Bidder or to appoint the Preferred Bidder as Successful Bidder for the mineral block and the State Government reserves the right to reject all or any of the Bidders or bids without assigning any reason whatsoever.” As per clause 17.2.1(a) of Other Provisions of the NIT, the State Government in its sole discretion and without incurring any obligation or liability, reserves the right to suspend and cancel the tender process as under:-“(a)suspend and/or cancel the tender process and/or amend and/or supplement the tender processor modify the dates or other terms and conditions relating thereto; “Therefore, there is no vested right of the respondent No.7 just because he has been declared as a ‘preferred bidder’.” The learned senior counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate reported in (2019) 10 SCC 738 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “We ask the question to us, as to whether directing re-tendering by inviting fresh tenders after giving wide publicity at the National level so as to obtain the best price for the public property, would be in the public interest or as to whether awarding contract to a bidder in the tender process where it is found that there was no adequate publicity and also a possibility of there being a cartel of bidders, would be in the public interest. We are of the considered view that the decision of the Commissioner which is set aside by the High Court is undoubtedly in larger public interest, which would ensure that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition. By no stretch of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational, which parameters only could have permitted the High Court to interfere. By no stretch of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational, which parameters only could have permitted the High Court to interfere. Interference by the High Court when none of such parameters exist, in our view, was totally improper. On the contrary, we find that it is the High Court, which has failed to take into consideration relevant material.” The learned senior counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India and Anr reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 . The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “6. Aggrieved, the original writ petitioner is before us in these petitions. This Court in a catena of judgments has laid down the principles with regard to judicial review in contractual matters. It is settled law that the writ courts should not easily interfere in commercial activities just because public sector undertakings or government agencies are involved. 7. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, it was held that judicial review of government contracts was permissible in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. The principles enunciated in this case are :- “94. ……. (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.” 8. xxx 9. xxx 10. In Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. vs. Cavalet India Ltd. it was held that while effective steps must be taken to realise the maximum amount, the High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to decide the correctness of the sale affected by the Corporation. 11. xxxx 12. xxxx 13. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa it was held: “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold……..” 14 xxxx 15. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. it was held that a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. The owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” 35. Heard learned counsel for the parties; material available on record and the judgments cited at the bar. 36. This Court observes that the Director, Mines and Geology, has issued a declaration dated 05.09.2019 while informing the petitioner that it has submitted the highest final price offer of 25.60% and is declared as the Preferred Bidder of the block in question. The said declaration dated 05.09.2019 specifically mentioned that it shall be subject to the final approval of the State Government. The declaration dated 05.09.2019 is reproduced hereunder:- “With reference to the notice inviting tender dated 03-07-2019 for grant of Mining Lease of limestone block No. 13 of 4GIIA Khimsar, district Nagaur issued by the Government of Rajasthan, e-auction of the above mentioned block was held on 04-09-2019 on the online electronic platform. We are pleased to inform that Sigma Minerals Limited. (MSTC Regn. Number: 121684) has submitted the Highest Final Price Offer of 25.60 and is hereby declared as the Preferred Bidder of this block. Subject to final approval of the State Government” 37. We are pleased to inform that Sigma Minerals Limited. (MSTC Regn. Number: 121684) has submitted the Highest Final Price Offer of 25.60 and is hereby declared as the Preferred Bidder of this block. Subject to final approval of the State Government” 37. This Court further observes that State Government after declaring the petitioner as the Preferred Bidder, offered the petitioner an opportunity to deposit the first installment of the upfront amount to the ratio of 10% of the total amount, which the petitioner duly deposited but it is important to note here that the State Government had not granted final approval to the petitioner even after being declared as the Preferred Bidder of the block in question and as the declaration of the petitioner as a Preferred Bidder for subject to the approval of the State Government no rights crystallized in favour of the petitioner. 38. This Court also observes that under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015, a Preferred Bidder shall be considered to be a Successful Bidder only upon fulfilling certain conditions as laid down under Rule 10 sub-Rule 3 and upon a perusal of the documents placed on record, and the submissions made, this Court finds that none of the conditions were fulfilled and thus, the petitioner did not step into the shoes of a Successful Bidder. It is an admitted position that as the petitioner was not declared a Successful Bidder by the respondents, thus, the Mine Department and Production Agreement, which is the subsequent requirement of Rule 10(4) was not signed between the State Government and the petitioner. Also, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of payment of the second or the third installment being 10% and 80% of the upfront payment. Upon Payment of the third installment which is a subsequent condition to the signing of the Mine Development and Production Agreement that the State Government after which, the petitioner would have been granted mining lease. Thus, the petitioner being in the initial stage of the grant of mining lease, as prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015, does not have any right crystallized in his favour. Thus, the petitioner being in the initial stage of the grant of mining lease, as prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015, does not have any right crystallized in his favour. The State Government under the guidelines as laid down in the Tender Document for e-auction of mining lease for limestone block, duly issued by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, Government of Rajasthan, reserves its right under clause 14.11.1 for rejection of the bids at any time without any liability or any obligation or any such acceptance, rejection or annulment or without assigning any reason thereof. Thus, the State Government is vested with wide power of rejection of the bid as laid down in clause 14.11.1. So much so, that the bid can be rejected at any stage without assigning any reason and in the present case, the bid is rejected vide order dated 17.12.2019 after assigning the reasons. It is also important to note that under clause 14.11.4, the State Government reserves the right to reject any bid on any criteria specified in the Tender Document and the power vested with the State Government under clause 14.11.4, is without limitation. Rule 10 of the Mineral Auction Rules 2015 is reproduced here as under: “10. Grant of Mining Lease.-(1) The preferred bidder shall submit the first instalment being ten per cent. of the upfront payment as per rule 11. (2) Upon receipt of the first instalment of the upfront payment, the State Government shall issue a letter of intent to the preferred bidder. (3) The preferred bidder shall be considered to be the “successful bidder” upon,- (a) continuing to be in compliance with all the terms and conditions of eligibility; (b) payment of the second instalment being ten per cent. of the upfront payment; (c) furnishing performance security as specified in rule 12; (d) satisfying the conditions specified in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 5 with respect to a mining plan; and (e) satisfying such other conditions as may be specified by the State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government. (4) The successful bidder shall sign the Mine Development and Production Agreement with the State Government upon obtaining all consents, approvals, permits, no-objections and the like as may be required under applicable laws for commencement of mining operations. (5) The successful bidder shall pay the third instalment being eighty per cent. (4) The successful bidder shall sign the Mine Development and Production Agreement with the State Government upon obtaining all consents, approvals, permits, no-objections and the like as may be required under applicable laws for commencement of mining operations. (5) The successful bidder shall pay the third instalment being eighty per cent. of the upfront payment subsequent to execution of the Mine Development and Production Agreement, and upon such payment the State Government shall grant a mining lease to the successful bidder. (6) The Mining Lease Deed shall be executed by the State Government within thirty days of the date of completion of the conditions specified in sub-rule (5) and shall be subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. (7) The mining lease shall be for minerals found in the area pursuant to exploration prior to the auction: Provided that where, subsequent to the auction, any new mineral is discovered, then the holder of mining lease shall follow the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for inclusion of such new mineral in the Mining Lease Deed. (8) Where, prior to the auction or subsequent to the auction, presence of minor mineral is established or discovered, such minor minerals shall be dealt in accordance with such rules made by the State Government under section 15. (9) The date on which a duly executed Mining Lease Deed is registered shall be the date of commencement of the mining lease.” 39. This Court also observes that under clause 17.2 of the Tender Document, certain rights of the State Government have been laid down. The Clause 17.2 states that the State Government in its sole discretion and without incurring any obligation or any liability reserves the right at any time to suspend and or cancel the tender process. Thus, clause 17.2.1, again gives the State Government wide powers to apply its own discretion for the purpose of cancelling the tender process at any time. Clause 17.2 of the tender document is reproduced hereunder:- “17.2. Right of State Government 17.2.1. Thus, clause 17.2.1, again gives the State Government wide powers to apply its own discretion for the purpose of cancelling the tender process at any time. Clause 17.2 of the tender document is reproduced hereunder:- “17.2. Right of State Government 17.2.1. The State Government, in its sole discretion and without incurring any obligation or liability, reserves the right, at any time, to; (a) suspend and/or cancel the tender process and/or amend and/or supplement the tender process or modify the dates or other terms and conditions relating thereto; (b) consult with any Bidder in order to receive clarification or further information; (c) retain any information and/or evidence submitted to the State Government by, on behalf of, and/or in relation to any Bidder; and/or (d) independently verify, disqualify, reject and/or accept any and all submissions or other information and/or evidence submitted by or on behalf of any Bidder. 17.2.2……….” 40. This Court further observes that since, the provisions in the Tender Document have given wide power to the State Government to cancel the bid at any time, it cannot be said that since the petitioner was declared as a Preferred Bidder vide notification dated 05.09.2019, the State Government could not have rejected the bid. 41. This Court also observes that under clause 1.8 of the Tender Document, it has been laid down that the State Government is not bound to select the bidder or to appoint the bidder as a Successful Bidder for the mineral block and the State Government has also been given the right to reject or any of the bidders or bidders without assigning any reason whatsoever. Clause 1.8 of the tender document is reproduced hereunder:- “1. Important information 1.1………. 1.8. The issue of this Tender Document does not imply that the State Government is bound to select a Bidder or to appoint the Preferred Bidder as Successful Bidder for the mineral block and the State Government reserves the right to reject all or any of the Bidders or bids without assigning any reason whatsoever. 1.9…...” 42. Important information 1.1………. 1.8. The issue of this Tender Document does not imply that the State Government is bound to select a Bidder or to appoint the Preferred Bidder as Successful Bidder for the mineral block and the State Government reserves the right to reject all or any of the Bidders or bids without assigning any reason whatsoever. 1.9…...” 42. This Court further observes that the submission made by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that the bid could not have been rejected by the respondent-State, as under clause 14.7.2 of the Tender Document, none of the conditions mentioned were flouted by the petitioner, is not sustainable as the State Government has been bestowed with unfettered power under the Tender Document for canceling/rejecting the bid at any time. Thus, it is immaterial that the petitioner had crossed the stage as was declared the Preferred Bidder and after crossing this stage, the State Government was liable to declare the petitioner as a Successful Bidder and issue the Letter of Intent in his favour, is not sustainable for the reasons mentioned above. 43. This Court also observes that this fact cannot be overlooked that the petitioner was declared as a Preferred Bidder, subject to the condition of approval by the State Government and the final approval was never given by the State Government and thus, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the State Government, praying for grant of the mining lease for the block in question. The petitioner though, was declared as the highest bidder, but has no vested right to have the auction proceedings concluded in his favour particularly when the State Government reserves its right to reject the bid at any time and without assigning any reason. It has also been specifically submitted that the loss that would be incurred to the public exchequer, would be about Rs.121.618 crores and the State Government passed the order dated 17.12.2019 in public interest. 44. This Court further observes that the respondents while keeping into consideration the huge loss which would be incurred as there was a marginal increase in the bid amount offered by the petitioner in comparison to the reserved price have rejected the bid. 44. This Court further observes that the respondents while keeping into consideration the huge loss which would be incurred as there was a marginal increase in the bid amount offered by the petitioner in comparison to the reserved price have rejected the bid. Thus the decision of the State Government in rejecting the bid for the grant of mining lease for the block in question cannot be faulted with especially when the petitioner has no right vested in his favour. It is a settled law that the grant of mining lease is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provisions of law/rules in the action of the authorities or suffers from malafides, no interference is permissible in such administration matters exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has failed to show violation of any provision of law/rules, malafide in the action of the State Government. 45. In view of the above observations the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.