Jhadol to Phalasiya road on National Highway NH-58 in District Udaipur. Following successful selection through a draw of lots, the petitioner was instructed to undergo Land Evaluation and Field Verification of Credentials, along with remitting an Initial Security Deposit (ISD) of Rs. 30,000 within 10 days. The petitioner complied with all requirements. However, without providing reasons, the respondent unexpectedly refunded the ISD through a letter dated 19.10.2020, stating that the application was rejected due to an error in the published advertisement specifying NH 58 instead of NH 58E. The petitioner, perplexed by this, inquired about the rejection reasons. In response, the respondent claimed that the NH mentioned in the advertisement was incorrectly published and subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner asserts that NH 58E is not officially listed by NHAI, and contends that the rejection was unjustified, given their initial success. The petition seeks redress for the allegedly wrongful rejection of the petitioner's application. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner contends that the respondent's decision to reject the petitioner's application, based solely on a typographical error in the advertisement, lacks justification. The petitioner, who had been declared successful, faced this rejection without the provision of any substantial reasoning. The counsel asserts that the respondent's explanation, stating that NH 58 should have been NH 58E, is flawed. This assertion is contradicted by the official list on the NHAI website, which does not include NH 58E. Additionally, it is argued that the respondent failed to disclose this discrepancy during the
