ORDER :

1. These appeals are filed by the appellant against the common order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the cancellation and rejection of the bid for plots situated in RIICO Industrial Area vide order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the respondent-corporation, has been dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel argued at length to assail the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the action of the respondent-Corporation is per se arbitrary and it is not a case where the bid offered by the appellant herein was, in any manner, lower than the minimum offset price fixed by the respondents themselves. It is contended that fixation of minimum offset price is based on conscious consideration of existing market rates and other surrounding conditions which include location of the plots and many other factors which are presumed to have been taken into consideration while fixing the minimum offset price. There was no procedural irregularity or any material to even remotely suggest that any favour or disfavour was done. Despite that, the respondent authorities, without there being any relevant materials, have arbitrarily rejected the highest bid of the appellant in the auction proceedings. Appellant in both the appeals had submitted his respective bids, which were more than the minimum offset price. That means, even according to respondents, the appellant had offered bid amount which was just and proper. The decision, which is said to have been taken by the committee consisting of certain officers, is only an eye wash to somehow justify the arbitrary action.

3. Learned Senior Counsel would highlight that some of the successful bidders of the other plots, who are trying to create monopoly, having participated in the process of tender in other cases, started making complaints and on these complaints, without any basis, bids of the appellant have been rejected which not only suffers from mala fide but also manifest arbitrariness and therefore, in such cases, even cancellation of bid and auction proceedings could be interfered with by the Writ Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Kumara Gupta Vs. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple and Ors.[Civil Appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022] and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors.[(1976) 1 SCC 671].

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, who entered appearance at this stage of admission itself, would submit that the learned Single Judge has upheld the action of the respondents taking into consideration that the decision of the respondents to cancel bids in respect of auction of some of the plots was a reasoned decision based on relevant materials that in case of number of plots, high bid amount was received, whereas, in cases of another set of plots including that of the appellant, particularly, when the plots are adjoining and almost similarly situated, low bid amounts were received. When this was noticed, a committee of senior officials was constituted and the committee, taking into consideration large variation in highest offer in respect of different sets of plots, though situated in the same industrial area and adjoining each other, decided that in all those cases where the offered highest bid is more than 1510, would be approved but in cases where the highest bid is on lower side being less than 1500, would be rejected. The decision of the minutes of e-auction held on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022 clearly reflects due consideration by the committee consisting of three senior officials of RIICO Limited, Nagaur. The decision was not taken in isolation only to reject the bid of the appellant but large number of bids below the rate of Rs. 1500, being 38 in numbers, were also rejected whereas, only those b