better rates, such a result cannot be regarded as depriving producers in other areas of their legal rights. Further, other participants in the tender process may be incurring higher costs for some other resource, natural or otherwise. The petitioners’ claim in these proceedings is tantamount to placing one resource in a special category, differences in the cost of which have to be factored in prior to the initiation of a bidding process under Section 63. The provision does not, in our view, admit of such an interpretation. Consistent with the objective of a transparent bidding process, the NTP and the Guidelines also reveal a preference for promotion of competition and efficiency amongst suppliers, in the ultimate interest of the consumer. Such policy decisions of the respondents, which in turn have been reflected in the tenders issued by various procuring agencies, are not arbitrary or irrational, and thus cannot be interdicted under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The aforesaid conclusion is also consistent with the Division Bench judgment dated 14.11.2017 of the Gujarat High Court in LPA No 1914 of 2017, affirming the judgment dated 23.10.2017 rendered by a Single Judge. These proceedings were in respect of a Request for Selection dated 15.6.2017, issued by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Respondent no. 5 herein), which is also in issue in the present proceedings. The challenge in that case was based principally upon the fact that the bidding process had been initiated under Section 63 of the Act, even prior to the formulation of relevant guidelines by the UOI. The petition came to be dismissed by the Single Judge, which was upheld on appeal by the Division Bench. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 20922 of 2017 in which the petitioner herein was also granted the opportunity to intervene. By an order dated 08.01.2018, the Supreme Court
