JUDGMENT : 1. By way of filing the present special appeal (writ), the appellant has challenged the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6866/2024. 2. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel submitted that the appellant had challenged the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, who for failure of the appellant to deposit 40% of the bid amount and other documents as required under Rule 14(10) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 2017’) forfeited the bid security of Rs. 40,00,000/-deposited by the appellant-Company and debarred it from taking part in any future e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years. 3. While challenging the decision of the Director, Mines and Geology, learned Senior counsel submitted that the aforesaid order was illegal and contrary to the facts, inasmuch as the Department did not clarify the rates to be charged for the mineral sold, despite the fact that a clarification was sought by the appellant-Company. It was also argued that while cancelling appellant’s-Company bid, the Director (Mines) had debarred and black-listed the appellant for a period of five years, which is contrary to the provisions of Rules 14(10) and 14(11) of the Rules of 2017. 4. Learned Senior counsel read condition No. n (5) of the important points appended with e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 and pointed out that as per this condition, the maximum rate to be charge at pit mouth has been fixed as 4 times the royalty which shall include DMFT, RSMET and all taxes & loading but as no sale can be affected on pit mouth because of the order of the CEC and Hon’ble the Supreme Court, such condition was illegal. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the letter/representation which the petitioner had written to the respondents and pointed out that the appellant had sought a clarification as to what would be permissible rate when the mineral (bajri) is sold from the depot which is to be established within a distance of 2 kilometer. Learned counsel argued that in absence of clarification in this regard, the appellant was unable to plan its affairs as establishment of depot and transportation/ movement of bajri to the depot from the pit mouth involves substantial cost. 5. It was contended by Mr. Learned counsel argued that in absence of clarification in this regard, the appellant was unable to plan its affairs as establishment of depot and transportation/ movement of bajri to the depot from the pit mouth involves substantial cost. 5. It was contended by Mr. Bhandari that on the one hand the letters of the appellant were mechanically responded by the respondents and no clarification was given, due to which the appellant could not deposit the 40% of the bid (Rs. 56, 21, 42,000/-) by 30.03.2024 as required in letter of acceptance sent with the e-mail dated 04.04.2024 and on the other hand immediately on passing of 10.04.2024 (the deadline given in letter of acceptance) the impugned order was passed. 6. Learned counsel submitted that such arbitrary action of the respondents, whereby not only appellant’s right to get mining rights have been taken away but also huge money of Rs.40,00,000/-being bid money has been forfeited and even the order of debarment has been passed, was challenged by way of filing writ petition but the Writ Court has erroneously non-suited it. 7. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in upholding the decision of the Director, Mines and Geology. He argued that debarring the Company from taking participation in future e-Auction proceedings, amounts to black-listing and the same cannot be done without affording any opportunity of hearing. 8. Learned Senior counsel further drew the Court’s attention towards Note No. 4 of the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 and submitted that as a consequence of said note, the appellant’s-Company will be debarred from taking part in any future e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years and the same clearly amounts to black-listing. 9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:- (I) Isolators & Isolators through its Proprietor Sandhya Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 607 ; and (ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 . 10. Mr. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 607 ; and (ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 . 10. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that by the impugned order dated 15.04.2024, the appellant Company was debarred from taking part in any further e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years in respect of the subject mining lease area and the same does not fall within the ambit of black-listing. He further submitted that in relation to other mining lease areas, the appellant-Company will be free to apply, unless an order of blacklisting in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 14(11) of the Rules of 2017 is passed. He submitted that the State is yet to take a decision in this respect and if deemed appropriate the proceedings for black-listing will be taken and then, a notice as contemplated under sub-rule (11) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017 shall be given. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. So far as the first argument of Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel that the appellant did not deposit the remaining amount because of lack of clarification is concerned, we are of the opinion that the requisite clarification was required to be sought by the appellant prior to venturing into the bidding. Having taken part, the appellant cannot challenge the conditions or stipulations made in the e-auction notice. The appellant having participated in the bidding process with eyes wide open was obligated to deposit the requisite amount, according to the conditions of the tender notice within the time period allowed in the letter of acceptance. 13. Adverting to the second submission of the appellant that the order impugned amounts to black-listing, and even while debarring the appellant-Company from taking part in any further e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years, the principles of natural justice were to be adhered to is concerned, we are of the view that the proviso to sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017 does not envisage any opportunity of hearing to be accorded. 14. 14. When there are two different stipulations in the same set of Rules, one in the form of sub-rule (10) and the other in the shape of sub-rule (11) of the Rule 14 and one specifically provides for granting of opportunity of hearing and other does not; then it can be safely discerned that the Rule making authority has consciously decided to do-away with the opportunity of hearing. The Court cannot read the opportunity of hearing which has been purposely excluded. 15. The case of debarring the appellant’s-Company from taking part in any further e-Auction proceedings by the said order under the scheme of the Rules of 2017, consequent to non-fulfillment of the conditions of the letter of acceptance, automatically entails forfeiture & debarring. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the prior opportunity was imperative, if not necessary, then also, since it is admitted fact that the appellant had failed to pay first installment of 40% of the bid amount, according to us, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and in the teeth of what has been encapsulated in sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017, no indulgence can be granted to the appellant. 16. We find neither any error of fact nor of law to have been committed by learned Single Judge. The appeal therefore fails. 17. Stay Application stands disposed of accordingly.