Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Nehal Enterprises vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2022
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/2022
M/s. Nehal Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor Manish Jain S/o
Sh. Bablulal Jain, Vadera Industries, Opposite Nasrani Biscope,
Basni 1St Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3899/2022
Kishan Pyari W/o Sh. Radheshyam, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of 136, Laxmi Nagar, Ward No. 30, Balotara - 344022.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3902/2022
M/s Sankhlecha Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Mangi Lal
Sankhlecha Resident Of Juna Kiradu Marg, Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(2 of 14) [CW-3946/2022]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3907/2022
M/s Material Marketing, Through Its Proprietor Shri Lalit Bhootra
Resident Of Khatri Colony, Ward No. 18, Balotra, Barmer (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3941/2022
M/s Godhara Associates, Through Its Proprietor Shri Chandra
Prakash, Resident Of Matasar Bhurtiya (Kawas), Barmer -
344035.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of
Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(3 of 14) [CW-3946/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3942/2022
Abhishek Golecha S/o Shri Mangi Lal Ji Golecha, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Daga Hospital Gali, Balotra, Barmer - 344022.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of
Rajasthan, Distt. Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3943/2022
Priyanka Maloo W/o Sh. Rajesh Mallo, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Kalyanpura, Barmer - 344001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of
Rajasthan, Distt. Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3967/2022
M/s Sankhlecha Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Murlidhar
Sankhlecha R/o Juna Kiradu Marg, Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(4 of 14) [CW-3946/2022]
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4078/2022
M/s. Jai Maa Virva Industries, Through Its Proprietor Dev Raj
Jatiya Resident Of Jatiyo Ka Bas, Balotra, Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4083/2022
M/s. Bhawani Krishi Udyog, Through Its Partner Shri Ghirdhari
Ram, Resident Of Kawas, Barmer - 344035.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4191/2022
M/s. Sankhlecha Industries, Through Its Proprietor Pawan Kumar
Jain S/o Sh. Nemichand, Age 42 Years, R/o Juna Kiradu Marg,
(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(5 of 14) [CW-3946/2022]
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4195/2022
M/s S.r. Agencies, Through Its Proprietor Sunil Vedera S/o
Ratanlal Vadera, Age 39 Years, Resident Of 960B, 12Th D Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of
Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.
Mr. Akshay Surana.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.
Ms Nidhi Singhvi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 04/11/2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(6 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] The issue involved in the above writ petitions is identical and the same arise out of similar order dated 17.02.2022, therefore, this batch of writ petitions is being heard finally and decided by this common order.
The present writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the proceedings in pursuance of E-auction notice dated 25.12.2021 have been canceled and the applications of the petitioners for allotment of land have been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents for allotment of land, the petitioners participated in the auction proceedings and they were declared highest bidders. Learned counsel further submits that in spite of issuance of allotment letters in favour of the petitioners, entire proceedings have been cancelled without assigning any reason. Learned counsel also submits that decision of the Categorization Committee dated 17.02.2022 was never communicated to the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 passed by respondent No.3 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to allot the land to the petitioners as per the auction proceedings undertaken.
Per contra, on the strength of detailed reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent RIICO, learned counsel for respondent RIICO submits that when it came to the notice of respondent RIICO that in the nearby vicinity of Refinery- Cum- Petrochemical Complex, entire area has been sanctioned as Petroleum, Chemical and Petrochemicals Investment Region in the Budget, therefore, a principal decision was taken that the (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (7 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] allotment of land in the newly Industrial Area of Borawas- Kalawa should be made to the industries of related sectors (i.e. Chemical, Petrochemicals & Petroleum) only by whom the raw material and byproduct may be made available or sold. Learned counsel further submits that in furtherance of the decision, a board meeting was held on 17.02.2022 wherein decision was taken, whereby it was decided not to allot the land in question to the successful bidders i.e. the present petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that in view of well reasoned decision taken by the members of the Categorization Committee of RIICO, the applications/bids of the petitioners were canceled.
It is also contended that in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. Vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 243, judgment of this court in Rohit Burad Vs RIICO Through M.D., Jaipur and Anr. (D.B.C.W.P.No.599/2021), Deepak mathur Vs State Urban Developers (D.B.S.A.W. No.742/2014) and Ramdev Group Industries Vs. RIICO, Through M.D., Jaipur and Anr. (S.B.C.W.P. No.3426/2021, the decision taken by respondent RIICO is just, proper and correct.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
There is no dispute with respect to the notice of auction having been issued for allotment of land in question to the persons like petitioners. The auction proceedings had also been conducted. However, the same were not finalized and allotment orders were not issued in favour of successful bidders. The reason assigned by the respondents for not allotting the land to the (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (8 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] petitioners is that on account of establishment of Refinery in the Petrochemical Complex, the allotment of land in the area in question should be made to the industries of the related sectors only for the purpose of facilitating proper functioning of the Refinery which is being established in the area. This court also takes note of the fact that the decision taken by respondent RIICO for not continuing with the bid process and cancellation of the applications of the petitioners is based on the detailed decision taken by the Categorization Committee. For brevity, the decision taken by the Categorization Committee is quoted as under:-
" In light of above facts and to comply with the directions of Board of Directors of RIICO during its meeting held on 20.11.2021, following is decided:-
1. Applications received through e-auction of 28 plots may be cancelled and EM deposits may be refunded to all the applicants by the Unit Head, Balotra.
2. No further development works be undertaken in industrial area Borawas kalawa including the planned portion.
3. In the proposed industrial area Borawas Kalawa allotment of land shall also be made to industries/ projects falling under Category A and Category B as specified in the EIA Notification 2006.
4. The industrial area Borawas kalawa to be re-planned as a whole over land area of 243.22 ha after taking inputs from BP Cell and HPCL Rajasthan Refinery Ltd. (HRRL), as needed.
5. Unit Head, Balotra and EM Cell to initiate process of obtaining Environmental Clearance under item 7 (c) Category 'A' of the Schedule annexed to EIA Notification 2006 from EAC, MoEF &CC, New Delhi for the proposed industrial area Borawas Kalawa after re-planning.
6. Further, it was also decided that no development works to be undertaken in the proposed industrial area Ramnagar (Thob) that also falls under PCPIR as of now. As such, the work order may be withdrawn by the Unit Head, Balotra. The categorisation proposal as per EIA Notification for I/area Ramnagar (Thob) may be put forth to the Committee after 3 months".
It is also noted that in furtherance of the decision taken by the committee on 17.02.2022, E-auction proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 25.12.2021 were cancelled. This court also takes note of the fact that the decision to cancel the bid proceedings is well founded and therefore, the same cannot be (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (9 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] said to be an outcome of any malafides and based on extraneous consideration.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra) has settled the legal proposition in this regard which reads as under:-
"28. This Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh & Ors. has laid down that there is no obligation to accept the highest bid.
The Government is entitled even to change its policy from time to time according to the demands of the time. It was observed thus :
"3. It appears to us that the High Court had clearly misdirected itself. The Conditions of Auction made it perfectly clear that the Government was under no obligation to accept the highest bid and that no rights accrued to the bidder merely because his bid happened to be the highest. Under Condition 10 it was expressly provided that the acceptance of bid at the time of auction was entirely provisional and was subject to ratification by the competent authority, namely, the State Government. Therefore, the Government had the right, for good and sufficient reason, we may say, not to accept the highest bid but even to prefer a tenderer other than the highest bidder. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the Government could not refuse to accept the highest bid except on the ground of inadequacy of the bid. Condition 10 does not so restrict the power of the Government not to accept the bid. There is no reason why the power vested in the Government to refuse to accept the highest bid should be confined to inadequacy of bid only. There may be a variety of good and sufficient reasons, apart from inadequacy of bids, which may impel the Government not to accept the highest bid. In fact, to give an antithetic illustration, the very enormity of a bid may make it suspect. It may lead the Government to realise that no bona fide bidder could possibly offer such a bid if he meant to do honest business. Again the Government may change or refuse its policy from time to time and we see no reason why change of policy by the Government, subsequent to the auction but before its confirmation, may not be a sufficient justification for the refusal to accept the highest bid. It cannot be disputed that the Government has the right to change its policy from time to time, according to the demands of the time and situation and in the public interest. If the Government has the power to accept or not to accept the highest bid and if the Government has also the power to change its policy from time to time, it must follow that a change or revision of policy subsequent to the provisional acceptance of the bid but before its final acceptance is a sound enough reason for the Government's refusal to accept the highest bid at an auction..."(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(10 of 14) [CW-3946/2022]
29. In Laxmikant & Ors. v. Satyawan & Ors. , this Court has laid down that in the absence of completed contract when the public auction had not culminated to its logical end before confirmation of the bid, no right accrued to the highest bidder. This Court has laid down as under :
"4. Apart from that the High Court overlooked the conditions of auction which had been notified and on basis of which the aforesaid public auction was held. Condition No. 3 clearly said that after the auction of the plot was over, the highest bidder had to remit 1/10 of the amount of the highest bid and the balance of the premium amount was to be remitted to the trust office within thirty days "from the date of the letter informing confirmation of the auction bid in the name of the person concerned". Admittedly, no such confirmation letter was issued to the respondent. Conditions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are relevant: "5. The acceptance of the highest bid shall depend on the Board of Trustees.
6. The Trust shall reserve to itself the right to reject the highest or any bid.
7. The person making the highest bid shall have no right to take back his bid. The decision of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees regarding acceptance or rejection of the bid shall be binding on the said person. Before taking the decision as above and informing the same to the individual concerned, if the said individual takes back his bid, the entire amount remitted as deposit towards the amount of bid shall be forfeited by the Trust."
From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This Court has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan Mishra v. State of Orissa (1971) 3 SCC 153, State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 2 SCC 36, Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (1969) 3 SCC 146 and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh (1982) 2 SCC 365. It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public auction was held."
30. In Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies & Anr. , this Court has laid down that a bidder has no right in the matter of bid except of (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (11 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] fair treatment in the matter and cannot insist for further negotiation. The Authority has a right to reject the highest bid. This Court has laid down thus :
"27. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations.
xxxxx
29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism."
31. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on a decision of this Court in M/s. Star Enterprises & Ors. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors. The relied upon portion is extracted hereunder :
"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 large stakes and availability of reasons for actions 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."
32. No doubt about it that there have to be some reasons for rejection of the bid which are adequately present in the instant case as discussed hereinabove. The decision is of no help to espouse the cause of the plaintiff." (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM)
(12 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision of the Categorization Committee dated 17.02.2022 was never communicated to the petitioners is noted to be rejected in the light of decision rendered by this court in the case of Deepak Mathur (Supra), relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"It is always for the authority to decide whether the price offered in an auction is adequate and accepting or rejecting a bid it is merely performing an executive function. The correctness of its conclusion is not open to judicial review unless the decision making process is unfair or the action of the State or its instrumentality is contrary to public good, public interest, unjust or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution which the appellants have not been able to justify from the material on record in the instant bunch of appeals. In the instant case as well the appellants had not acquired any right in their favour and merely because they are the highest bidders and deposited 15% of the bid with the Board and that being subject to acceptance of the competent authority and there is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted and that apart the learned Single Judge also perused & examined the records and observed that in few cases MSP was determined without proper consideration or the rate was inadequate and it was not the case of the appellants that different standards have been adopted or there was any element of selectivity in decision making process of the competent authority for non-acceptance of the bid offered by the highest bidder and the primary reason as observed was that the bid of the appellants could not fetch price of the plot after it being due compared with the price fetched of the plot in the nearby areas in few cases and in some of the cases MSP was found to be faulty and in totality the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board was not satisfied with the bid which was offered by the so called alleged highest bidder and accordingly it was proposed to initiate the auction after due determination of MSP afresh and in our considered view there is sufficient material on record which could justify the decision making process adopted by the respondent intaking its final decision for non-acceptance of the bid offered by the highest bidder.
As regards the submission made by the appellants regarding auction being discriminatory and different standards were adopted by the Board we do not find any pleadings on record and initial burden was upon the appellants to establish but that was not the case ever pleaded or set up before the learned Single Judge or before this Court. As regards the submission made regarding reason not being assigned by the competent authority in passing of the order impugned in our considered view is without substance for the reason that there is no requirement under the law to indicate reasons by the competent authority for acceptance or (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (13 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] rejection of the bid offered by the highest bidder and this being the executive function of the competent authority no reason is supposed to be assigned while taking impugned decision and the correctness of its conclusion is ordinarily not open to judicial review unless the right conferred being infringed by action of the authority which is not the case of the appellants pleaded before the Court. The State or the other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender/offer orbid and the competent authority could validly retain its power to accept or reject the highest bid obviously in the interest of public revenue and in absence of there being any concluded contract the conclusion reached by the authority does not infringe rights of the highest bidder and we do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge in passing of order impugned which may call for our interference.
As regards the judgment on which the appellants placed reliance reported in (2008) 10 696 is concerned, may not be of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where neither record was placed for perusal and the decision of the authority was not based on rational & tangible reasons and was in public interest,whereas in the instant case the respondents are able to justify their action in decision making process and taking final decision in not accepting the bid offered by the highest bidder and in absence of any right being accrued in favour of the appellants and without there being any concluded contract between the parties in respect of the subject plot in question no right could be said to be infringed which may require interference u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.
We are of the considered view that the competent authority was not supposed to assign reasons while accepting/ rejecting the recommendations of the subordinate authority and in the light of what has been discussed no reasons are required to be assigned while the decision being taken by the competent authority regarding non-acceptance of the highest bid offered by the bidder and in absence of any right being conferred or infringed no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the bidder".
Thus, cancellation of the bid proceedings done by the respondent RIICO is based on cogent reasons and no illegality has been committed by the respondents in taking such conscious decision.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed being bereft of any legal force.
However, if the petitioners are desirous of setting up industries in the State of Rajasthan, they are free to approach the respondents by way of filing appropriate representations. In the (Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (14 of 14) [CW-3946/2022] event of filing such representations, the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law without being influenced by dismissal of the above writ petitions.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 27-38 AnilSingh/-
(Downloaded on 09/11/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)