ORDER : L.S. PIRZADA, J. 1. Learned advocate Mr.Saurabh M. Patel for the petitioner has tendered the draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Saurabh M. Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent – State Authorities vide order dated 29.07.2025, cancelling the lease tender contract for Thorali Water Reservoir situated at Village: Thorali, Taluka: Sihor, District: Bhavnagar de-hors the procedure mentioned in the notification of 2004. 4. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was initially awarded the tender for five years from 01.07.2017 to 10.06.2022 in view of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004. Thereafter, on completion of the period of five years, the contract was extended for a further period of five years by the respondent - State Authorities i.e. from 01.08.2022 to 31.05.2027. However, before the said period could end, the respondent - State Authorities, by invoking the clauses of the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, cancelled the tender dated 29.07.2025 and decided to invite fresh tender for granting the Water Reservoirs under the Small Irrigation Scheme. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the action of the State in inviting fresh tenders for the Water Reservoirs for which, the present petitioner was already holding a contract, is illegal. It was not open for the respondent - State authorities to invite fresh tenders for the very same Water Reservoirs, as the case of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Saurabh M. Patel for the petitioner submitted that the State has erred in invoking deleted Clause 3(b)(4) of the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, which allowed granting of the contract for a period of five years and thereafter, extending the same till ten years. It is submitted that the contract of the present petitioner is required to be extended for a further period of five years and the impugned action of the respondents be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to continue with the contract. It is submitted that the contract of the present petitioner is required to be extended for a further period of five years and the impugned action of the respondents be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to continue with the contract. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the Court is not inclined to accept the submission, the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the fresh tender process. 7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondent - State authorities submitted that the said issue is already covered by the Order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.9611 of 2025 with Special Civil Application No.9612 of 2025 with Special Civil Application No.9613 of 2025. It is submitted that, therefore, the present petition is required to be rejected. 7.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve further stated that after the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 came to be passed, a fresh tender process was initiated for Thorali Water Reservoir and the tender was awarded to the successful bidder. 8. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is profitable to peruse the Order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.9611 of 2025 and allied matters. By the said Order dated 14.07.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench has interpreted the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, more particularly, Clause 3(b)(4) of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004, which has been deleted to the extent that the tender, if awarded, for the period mentioned therein, namely five years, can be renewed for ten years. 9. In this regard, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:- “6. During the course of the hearing, we inquired about the terms and conditions attached to the tenders, initially awarded to the petitioners, in the year 2017, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004. The conditions Nos. 6, 53, 54, 55, and 56 of the contract were shown to us. The same are translated as under: “(6) During the lease period, the Government may, in public interest, withdraw the lease of the water body or reduce the lease period. In such cases, the lessee and other lessees/institutions shall be liable to pay the proportionate lease amount fixed for the relevant period. The same are translated as under: “(6) During the lease period, the Government may, in public interest, withdraw the lease of the water body or reduce the lease period. In such cases, the lessee and other lessees/institutions shall be liable to pay the proportionate lease amount fixed for the relevant period. (53) The power to cancel the lease at any time and without assigning any reason shall remain unconditionally vested with the Commissioner of Fisheries/Government. (54) For effective implementation of the lease policy as determined under the Fisheries Act, Two Thousand Three, the Commissioner of Fisheries may issue ancillary instructions consistent with the lease policy, which shall be binding upon the lessee. (55) Apart from the above-stated provisions, if necessity arises to grant lease of any water body or otherwise in any other manner, the Commissioner of Fisheries may submit a proposal to the Government with sufficient reasons, and besides that, the Government, if it so desires, may adopt any other policy in any case. (56) For the development of the reservoir, the State Government may bring any law/rule and may also consider any matter by granting relaxation in the present lease policy. For the effective implementation of the lease policy, the Commissioner of Fisheries may issue ancillary instructions consistent with the lease policy, which shall be binding upon the lessee.” 7. When the attention of Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, was invited to these conditions, he fairly admitted that the petitioners would be bound by the tender conditions. Thus, as per the aforesaid conditions, more particularly conditions No. 6 and 53 of the contract, it is explicit that the petitioners are bound by the same, and the curtailment of the period as well as the cancellation of the contract is within the exclusive domain of the State authorities. Accordingly, it appears that the State authorities, by invoking the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, have in their wisdom, invited fresh tenders in the public interest. 8. We may clarify that by the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, the condition in Clause 3(b)(4) of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004 has been deleted to the extent that the tender, if awarded, for the period mentioned therein, namely five years can be renewed for ten years. 8. We may clarify that by the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, the condition in Clause 3(b)(4) of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004 has been deleted to the extent that the tender, if awarded, for the period mentioned therein, namely five years can be renewed for ten years. It appears that the respondent State authorities, while extending the contract, have not considered condition in Clause 3(b)(4) of the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, deleting the second paragraph of Clause 3(b)(4) at page No. 5, of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004. 9. The action of extending the tender in the year 2022 has a direct nexus with the conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the State. The conditions prevailing in the contract shall prevail, and the petitioners are bound by the contract entered into between them and the State. 10. Hence, in our considered opinion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the State Government in inviting fresh tenders for the Water Reservoirs, which the petitioners have been enjoying for a period of more than seven years, i.e. from 01.07.2017 to 04.06.2025.” 10. Considering the above observations and dictum of the Co-ordinate Bench, it appears that as per the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2019, the condition in Clause 3(b)(4) of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2004 that the tender, if awarded, for the period of five years, can be renewed for a further period of five years, has been deleted and considering the same, we do not find any merit in the present petition as the issue has already been covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench vide Order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.9611 of 2025 and allied matters. Hence, in our opinion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the respondent – State in inviting fresh tenders for the Thorali Water Reservoir. 11. In view of the above, the petition stands rejected.