ORDER : KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents. 2. It is contended that the 2 nd respondent invited tenders for grant of mining lease through e-auction vide tender notification dated 20.08.2025. The last date for receiving of the applications was 25.09.2025 (extended upto 06.10.2025). Pursuant to the said tender notification the petitioner(s) submitted its application. Thereafter, petitioner(s) filed a representation dated 13.10.2025 stating that multiple bids were submitted by the bidders which is contrary to the provisions of Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) which provides that the bidder shall have to submit only one bid and no affiliate of the bidder can submit a bid in the same auction. It is further contended that without considering the objections raised by the petitioner(s) the respondents are going ahead with the finalization of the bids. Thus, the petitioner(s) approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 3. When the matter has been taken up for consideration today, the learned Assistant Government for Mines and Geology has placed before the Court a copy of instructions received by her in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that preliminary scrutiny of the bid applications was made on 07.10.2025. However, technical bid evaluation by the competent committee has not yet been completed. Certain anomalies were noticed and the legal opinion was sought in the case. Only upon receipt of the opinion, the committee constituted for technical evaluation would process the technical evaluation and finalize the technically qualified bidders. The e-auction schedule to 07.11.2025 is subject to completion of technical evaluation. It is further stated that as per Rule 6(6) & (7) of the Rules, the State Government shall duly examine and consider all the representations received before finalizing the list of technically qualified bidders. Since, the technical evaluation is pending all the representations/objections are under consideration. Thus, contends that the relief sought by the petitioner(s) is premature and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner(s). 4. Since, the technical evaluation is pending all the representations/objections are under consideration. Thus, contends that the relief sought by the petitioner(s) is premature and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner(s). 4. Having regard to the contentions advanced, after placing on record the written remarks of the 2 nd respondent in the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the objections raised by the petitioners before finalizing the bids. 5. With the above observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.