Rajiv Sharma, J.

Respondent-State invited proposals from private investors for setting up Small Hydro Electric Projects upto 5 MW capacity for 35 identified sites. The last date of receipt of proposals was 31.12.2010. However, the same was extended upto 20.1.2011. Petitioner submitted proposal on 20.1.2011 for Machhad-II (2 MW) project. Respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 5.5.2012 for removing deficiencies, more particularly, with regard to computation of net worth. The last date for removal of deficiency was 26.5.2012. However, the same was extended upto 22.6.2012. Petitioner claimed that he removed the deficiencies and submitted the proposal alongwith Annexure P-5 on 22.6.2012. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he has supplied the documents on 22.6.2012, but his proposal has been rejected on 25.6.2012.

2. Mr. D.N. Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting the proposal of the petitioner on 25.6.2012 is illegal, arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ajeet Saklani have vehemently argued that the petit