G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. 1. The present judgment shall dispose of 9 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos, 9502, 10993, 18692, 25786, 11574, 13926, 12776, 14989 and 19487 of 2022, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts have been taken from CWP-9502-2022, M/s. S.K. Woollen Mills and others vs. State of Haryana and others. 2. The prayer in the present writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of directions to allot the industrial plots in categories 4050 sq. mts. and 7875 sq. mts. in the Industrial Estate, Panipat in pursuance of the auction notice dated 04.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) being the highest bidders during the online bidding process. The ground taken is that the respondents, without any reason, have cancelled the allotments/booking of the plots and rejected the case of the petitioners and resultantly, order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) is sought to be challenged by writ in the nature of certiorari. A perusal of the said communication, which is by way of e-mail, would go on to show that the respondent No.2-Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (in short 'HSIIDC') had informed the petitioners that their bids in the aforementioned categories have not been accepted by the competent authority and the earnest money deposit (EMD) was being refunded. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that on 04.11.2021, announcement of e-auction of various industrial plots was done including the plots at Panipat. The tentative rate was fixed at Rs.8,800/- per sq. mt. and the earnest money deposit was at 5%. The amount worked out to Rs.17,82,000/- for the plots measuring 4050 sq. mts. whereas for the plots measuring 7875 sq. mts., the EMD worked out at Rs.34,65,000/-. The processing fees was fixed at Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for the two categories, respectively. The successful bidder had to complete 10% payment at H-1 bid within 72 hours of intimation, failing which, the 5% of the EMD was to be forfeited as per the eauction brochure (Annexure P-2). mts., the EMD worked out at Rs.34,65,000/-. The processing fees was fixed at Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for the two categories, respectively. The successful bidder had to complete 10% payment at H-1 bid within 72 hours of intimation, failing which, the 5% of the EMD was to be forfeited as per the eauction brochure (Annexure P-2). The relevant clauses 9(h) and 9(i) of the brochure read thus:- “h. The successful bidders have to complete 10% payment (after adjusting the EMD amount deposited at the time of registration) at H-1 bid price within 72 hours of intimation by the HSIIDC after getting approval of the competent authority for acceptance of H-1 bids, failing which 5% EMD deposited at the time of registration shall stand forfeited. No extension of time for deposit of H-1 payment shall be given. It shall be the responsibility of the bidder to regularly check status of acceptances of his bid and demand of balance payment for completing 10% of H-1 bid price on the e-auction portal; i. The HSIIDC shall reserve to itself the right to accept any bid subject to approval of the Competent Authority or reject any bid, even the highest bid or withdraw the site from auction at any stage without assigning any reason.” 4. It is the case of the petitioners that 30 plots of 4050 sq. mts. And 8 plots of 7875 sq. mts. were offered as per Annexure P-3 and the 30 petitioners herein in the present writ petitions were the highest bidders and were waiting for the intimation regarding the approval so that they could deposit the 10% payment within the 72 hours. The respondents had, however, chosen not to accept the bids without giving any specific reason and were wanting to refund the amount. After receiving the said information, the official of HSIIDC had been approached as to find out the ground to cancel the online bidding process but the same had not been intimated to them. Resultantly, it is pleaded that there is a policy of pick and choose to the extent that the plots of other sizes which had been auctioned at the same point of time had been duly issued allotment letters and, therefore, the action of the respondents was arbitrary. 5. Resultantly, it is pleaded that there is a policy of pick and choose to the extent that the plots of other sizes which had been auctioned at the same point of time had been duly issued allotment letters and, therefore, the action of the respondents was arbitrary. 5. On 06.05.2022 while issuing notice of motion, plots mentioned in Annexure P-5 were directed not to be allotted to third parties till the next date of hearing, which order has continued till date. 6. The respondents, in their reply, took the plea that the bid did not vest any right in the bidder and it was merely an invitation/offer and they did not acquire any vested right in their favour unless it was accepted by the authority. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Rajasthan Housing Board and another vs. G.S. Investments and another, (1996) 4 SCC 208 ; Laxmikant vs. Satyawan, AIR 1996 SC 2052 ; Merrut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies and another, (2009) 6 SCC 171 . It was clarified that the e-auction which was opened on 04.11.2021 was closed on 03.12.2021 and 434 applications had been received in 5 plot sizes of 450 sq. mts., 1012.5 sq. mts., 1800 sq. mts., 4050 sq. mts. and 7875 sq. mts. at Panipat. It was further mentioned that applications had also been invited for allotment of plots of sizes of 24300 sq. mts., 33210 sq. mts. And 39600 sq. mts. The Board of Directors, at a prior point of time on 22.10.2021 in its 370th Meeting, had fixed the criteria as under:- “i. Less than 1800 sq. meters size plot – 1 plot against 3 applications registered. ii. 1800 sq. meters and above but less than 1 acre – 1 plot against the 2 application registered. iii. 1 acre (4050 sq. meters and above) – N minus 2 where N is number of registered applications; where there are only 2 registered applications one plot will be offered.” 7. The chart was, thus, given that for the last 3 sizes of the plots i.e. 24300 sq. mts., 33210 sq. mts. and 39600 sq. mts., there were no applications received and the applications were received only in 5 categories and 30 plots and 8 plots, respectively had been put to auction in the two categories i.e. 4050 sq. mts. and 7875 sq. mts., respectively. In plot size category of 4050 sq. mts., 33210 sq. mts. and 39600 sq. mts., there were no applications received and the applications were received only in 5 categories and 30 plots and 8 plots, respectively had been put to auction in the two categories i.e. 4050 sq. mts. and 7875 sq. mts., respectively. In plot size category of 4050 sq. mts., 32 EMDs were received against the 30 plots and the maximum bid was Rs.12,200/- per sq. mt. against the reserve price of Rs.8,800/- whereas the minimum was Rs.9,000/- per sq. mt. The average bid price was Rs.9,333/- per sq. mt. and overall premium fetched was 6.06% over the reserve price. For plot size category measuring 7875 sq. mts., against the 8 plots, only 10 applications were received. The maximum bid price was Rs.10,600/- and the minimum price was Rs.9,000/- and the average bid price worked out at Rs.9,650/- per sq. mt. and the average premium fetched was merely 9.66% over the reserve price. 8. It was accordingly averred that for other plot sizes of 450 sq. mts. And 1800 sq. mts., the premium had gone to 60% and on account of complaints received through e-mails, it had been found that a cartel had been made to keep the prices in specific limits less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. mt. The HSIIDC would, thus, suffer a huge loss on account of fetching low premium over the reserve price and decision was taken not to accept the bid and refund the EMD for the two categories. Resultantly, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in CWP-1972-2021, Rohit Garg vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.03.2021 wherein, it had been held that by accepting a bid which was lower than the market value would not be in the public interest and would be for the very purpose of generating revenue and the earlier view taken in CWP-29916-2019, Sanjay Garg and another vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 29.11.2019 had been followed. Resultantly placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (4) SCC 243 , the prayer was made that the writ petitions be dismissed. 9. Resultantly placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (4) SCC 243 , the prayer was made that the writ petitions be dismissed. 9. The petitioners, in their replication, sought to aver that the writ Court had jurisdiction and responsibility should be fixed on the officials who had fixed the low reserve price and the fact that e-auction had been conducted without any technical glitch and there is no valid reason. The fact that 70 acre plot had been allotted to a Birla Group of Industries at Rs.8,800/- per sq. mt. was highlighted which had also been averred in the writ petition. 10. Mr. Nehra has accordingly placed reliance upon the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.4856-65 of 2023, HSIIDC vs. Ashish Jain and others wherein, the appeals of the Corporation were dismissed and the judgment as such of this Court whereby directions were issued to conduct manual auction from the stage of the end of the e-auction was struck down to submit that there was a power of judicial review. 11. Mr. Mittal, on the other hand, has produced the details regarding the premium over the reserve price to point out that for category size 4050 sq. mts., the maximum bid was of Rs.12,200/- per sq. mt. whereas the minimum bid was for Rs.9,000/- per sq. mt. and the bids ranged from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.9,200/-, Rs.9,400/- and 9,600/- and the premium fetched was a mere 6.06% over the reserve price. There was only one bid which was substantially more for the plot size measuring 4050 sq. mts. Similarly, it was pointed out from the chart that for the plot size 7875 sq. mts., the maximum bid price was Rs.10,600/- for one plot and the minimum bid was for Rs.9,000/- with an increase of Rs.9,400/-, Rs.9,800/- and going upto Rs.10,000/-. Premium over the reserve price, thus, worked out to a mere 9.66%. It was the argument as such that the local staff as such of the HSIIDC at Panipat had arranged data of registration of few people leading to uniting of the people who had registered for those two sizes of plots and they had managed to keep the bid price under control. 12. It was the argument as such that the local staff as such of the HSIIDC at Panipat had arranged data of registration of few people leading to uniting of the people who had registered for those two sizes of plots and they had managed to keep the bid price under control. 12. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered against the petitioners in view of the judgment in Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) wherein, it has been held that the writs are not maintainable in the absence of any concluded contract and merely being a highest bidders does not give the petitioners an indefeasible right. The relevant portion in Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) reads thus:- “13. Firstly, we examine the question whether there being no concluded contract in the absence of acceptance of bid and issuance of allotment letter, the suit could be said to be maintainable for the declaratory relief and mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that rejection of the bid was illegal. Merely by that, plaintiff could not have become entitled for consequential mandatory injunction for issuance of formal letter of allotment. Court while exercising judicial review could not have accepted the bid. The bid had never been accepted by concerned authorities. It was not a case of cancellation of bid after being accepted. Thus even assuming as per plaintiff’s case that the Administrator was not equipped with the power and the Chief Administrator had the power to accept or refuse the bid, there had been no decision by the Chief Administrator. Thus, merely by declaration that rejection of the bid by the Administrator was illegal, the plaintiff could not have become entitled to consequential relief of issuance of allotment letter. Thus the suit, in the form it was filed, was not maintainable for relief sought in view of the fact that there was no concluded contract in the absence of allotment letter being issued to the plaintiff, which was a sine qua non for filing the civil suit. 14. It is a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The Government or its authority could validly retain power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of public revenue. 14. It is a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The Government or its authority could validly retain power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of public revenue. We are of the considered opinion that there was no right acquired and no vested right accrued in favour of the plaintiff merely because his bid amount was highest and had deposited 10% of the bid amount. As per Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations of 1978, allotment letter has to be issued on acceptance of the bid by the Chief Administrator and within 30 days thereof, the successful bidder has to deposit another 15% of the bid amount. In the instant case allotment letter has never been issued to the petitioner as per Regulation 6(2) in view of nonacceptance of the bid. Thus there was no concluded contract. Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 1978 is extracted hereunder : “6. Sale of lease of land or building by auction.- (1) In the case of sale or lease by auction, the price/premium to be charged shall be such reserve price/premium as may be determined taking into consideration the various factors as indicated in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 4 or any higher amount determined as a result of bidding in open auction. (2) 10 per cent of the highest bid shall be paid on the spot by the highest bidder in cash or by means of a demand draft in the manner specified in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5. The successful bidder shall be issued allotment letter in Form ‘CC’ or ‘C-II’ by registered post and another 15 per cent of the bid accepted shall be payable by the successful bidder, in the manner indicated, within thirty days of the date of allotment letter conveying acceptance of the bid by the Chief Administrator; failing which the 10 percent amount already deposited shall stand forfeited to the Authority and the successful bidder shall have no claim to the land or building auctioned. (3) The payment of balance of the price/premium, rate of interest chargeable and the recovery of interest shall be in the same manner as provided in sub-regulations (6) and (7) of Regulation 5. (3) The payment of balance of the price/premium, rate of interest chargeable and the recovery of interest shall be in the same manner as provided in sub-regulations (6) and (7) of Regulation 5. (4) The general terms and conditions of the auction shall be such as may be framed by the Chief Administrator from time to tome and announced to the public before auction on the spot.” 15. We are fortified in our view by a decision of this Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma (2013) 5 SCC 182 , the questions arose for its consideration that : whether there is any vested right upon the plaintiff/bidder until the bid is accepted by the competent authority in relation to the property in question? Merely because the plaintiff is the highest bidder by depositing 20% of the bid amount without there being approval of the same by the competent authority and it amounts to a concluded contract in relation to the plot in question; and whether the plaintiff could have maintained the suit in the absence of a concluded contract ? Considering the aforesaid questions, this Court has discussed the matter thus : “30. In support of the said proposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant, Mr Rakesh Dwivedi has also placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh (1982) 2 SCC 365 . The learned Senior Counsel has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rajasthan Housing Board case (2007) 1 SCC 477 which reads as under: (SCC p. 483, para 9) “9. This being the settled legal position, the respondent acquired no right to claim that the auction be concluded in its favour and the High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition and in not only issuing a direction for consideration of the representation but also issuing a further direction to the appellant to issue a demand note of the balance amount. The direction relating to issuance of the demand note for balance amount virtually amounted to confirmation of the auction in favour of the respondent which was not the function of the High Court.” x x x x x In State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 2 SCC 36 case, relevant paragraph of which reads as under: (SCC pp. 44-45, para 13) “13. 44-45, para 13) “13. x x x x x There is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted. Before there was a concluded contract, it was open to the bidders to withdraw their bids (see Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (1969) 3 SCC 146 ). By merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested rights. ...” (emphasis supplied) x x x x x 31. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior Counsel Mr Rakesh Dwivedi has rightly placed reliance upon the same in support of the case of the first defendant, which would clearly go to show that the plaintiff had not acquired any right and no vested right has been accrued in his favour in respect of the plot in question merely because his bid amount is highest and he had deposited 20% of the highest bid amount along with the earnest money with the Board. In the absence of acceptance of bid offered by the plaintiff to the competent authority of the first defendant, there is no concluded contract in respect of the plot in question, which is evident from letters dated 26-5-1977 and 8-7-1977 wherein the third defendant had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same was refunded to him by way of demand draft, which is an undisputed fact and it is also not his case that the then Assistant Housing Commissioner who has conducted the public auction had accepted the bid of the plaintiff.” (emphasis supplied). This Court has held that in the absence of a concluded contract which takes place by issuance of allotment letter, suit could not be said to be maintainable as there is no vested right in the plaintiff without approval of the bid by the competent authority. Thus, in the wake of aforesaid decision, in the absence of a concluded contract, the suit could not have been decreed for mandatory injunction. It amounted to enforcing of contract in the absence thereof. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that in the absence of a concluded contract, i.e. in the absence of allotment letter and acceptance of highest bid, the suit by the plaintiff was wholly misconceived. It amounted to enforcing of contract in the absence thereof. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that in the absence of a concluded contract, i.e. in the absence of allotment letter and acceptance of highest bid, the suit by the plaintiff was wholly misconceived. Even if non-acceptance of the bid was by an incompetent authority, the court had no power to accept the bid and to direct the allotment letter to be issued. Merely on granting the declaration which was sought that rejection was illegal and arbitrary and by incompetent authority, further relief of mandatory injunction could not have been granted, on the basis of findings recorded, to issue the allotment letter, as it would then become necessary to forward the bid to competent authority – Chief Administrator - for its acceptance, if at all it was required.” 13. We had followed the said view in another bunch of cases, lead case of which was CWP-13656-2023, Mahavir Singh vs. HSVP and others decided on 07.08.2023 while noting that there was a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Surja Ram vs. State of Haryana and another, 1984 PLR 584 wherein, it had been held that reasons for refusing the non-acceptance of the bid had to be given. Such reasons may not have to be disclosed to the highest bidder but the Court can ask for them to be made available and find out whether the same are relevant and germane to the non-acceptance to the bid. The said view was doubted by another Division Bench but reiterated in another Full Bench in Subhash Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2007 (Punjab and Haryana) 167 wherein, it was held that State action can be examined under the power of judicial review and the same is presumed to be in accordance with law and the onus is always heavy on the person propagating otherwise. In Merrut Development Authority's case (supra), it was held that the refusal of the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism and if there existed good and sufficient reasons of the bid not representing the correct market price, the authority could decline the confirmation and not accept the bid. In Merrut Development Authority's case (supra), it was held that the refusal of the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism and if there existed good and sufficient reasons of the bid not representing the correct market price, the authority could decline the confirmation and not accept the bid. Similar view was taken in M/s. Star Enterprises and others vs. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, (1990) 3 SCC 280 , the relevant part of which reads thus:- “10. In recent times, judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day. The traditional limitations have been vanishing and the sphere of judicial scrutiny is being expanded. State activity too is becoming fast pervasive. As the State has descended into the commercial field and giant public sector undertakings have grown up, the stake of the public exchequer is also large justifying larger social audit, judicial control and review by opening of the public gaze; these necessitate recording of reasons for executive actions including cases of rejection of highest offers. That very often involves long stakes and availability of reasons for action on the record assures credibility to the action; disciplines public conduct and improves the culture of accountability. Looking for reasons in support of such action provides an opportunity for an objective review in appropriate cases both by the administrative superior and by the judicial process. The submission of Mr. Dwivedi, therefore, commends itself to our acceptance, namely, that when highest offers of the type in question are rejected reasons sufficient to indicate the stand of the appropriate authority should be made available and ordinarily the same should be communicated to the concerned parties unless there be any specific justification not to do so.” 14. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents have come to the valid conclusion that the bid as such was controlled to keep the price within reasonable limits. In view of the limited number of plots and the applications received, as noticed above, since there were only 32 applicants against 30 plots and 10 applicants against 8 plots of the two categories and the premium being fetched was less than 10% over the reserve price whereas for the other two categories i.e. for 450 sq. mts. And 1800 sq. mts, the premium was to the extent of 60%. mts. And 1800 sq. mts, the premium was to the extent of 60%. In such circumstances, justification given by the State is valid and keeping in view the settled principle of law, as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the decision taken by the respondents does not suffer from any arbitrariness or infirmity and is based on valid reasons in order to ensure that public money is not squandered. 15. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the facts and circumstances and, therefore, are of no assistance, though the principle of exercising the powers of judicial review is not doubted but the petitioners have not been able to make out a case to submit that the action of the respondents was arbitrary in any manner. Rather, the malafides is writ large at the hands of the applicants who belong to a small town and apparently were trying to grab the premium industrial plots at a bare minimum over and above the reserve price which had been fixed by pooling their resources together and forming a cartel to peg down the prices. 16. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the present writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.