M/S Kant Construction Company vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10755 of 2026
M/S Kant Construction Company
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbrat Mukherjee, Siddharth
Mukherjee
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harshit Kumar Srivastava,
Himanshu Srivastava, Madan Lal
Srivastava
Along with :
1. Writ - C No. 12100 of 2026:
M/s Rudra Enterprises
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others
2. Writ - C No. 11154 of 2026:
Kant Construction Company
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
3. Writ - C No. 12260 of 2026:
Kant Construction Company
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others

Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
(Per Arindam Sinha, J.)
1. The writ petitions, lead case Writ-C no. 10755 of 2026 (M/S Kant
Construction Company vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) are being heard
together.
2. There was auction notice dated 12th January, 2026 inviting bids for
obtaining mining lease in respect of several areas, duly declared. Chapter IV
in U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 provides the procedure.
There is no challenge to the auction notice. Petitioners are participants in the

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
2
e-auction, whose bids were rejected on technicalities.
3. The controversy is in respect of clauses 2 to 4 in aforesaid auction
notice. It is necessary for adjudication of the writ petitions, to reproduce
below relevant requirements under the auction notice.
2. / / , , -
"
कोई व्यक्ति फर्म निकाय जो भारतीय नागरिक हो जिलाधिकारी सोनभद्र को सम्बोधित ई निविदा संलग्न
-2 , -
प्रारूप पर प्रस्तुत कर सकता है जिसमें निम्नलिखित बातें होंगीः
.
क विज्ञप्ति संख्या व दिनांकः जिसके द्वारा क्षेत्र विज्ञापित किया गया हो।
.
ख विज्ञप्ति में क्षेत्र का क्रमांक।
. , , ( ) - (
ग निविदाकार का नाम पिता का नाम पता स्थायी और वर्तमान ई मेल एवं मोबाइल नं० पता के
/ /
प्रमाण स्वरूप व्यक्ति के लिये आधार कार्ड या अन्य पहचान पत्र तथा फर्म कम्पनी निकाय के लिये
)
उनका पंजीकरण का विवरण
. ( / )
घ क्या आवेदक भूस्वामी है। हॉ नहीं
. , :-
ड उस क्षेत्र और खनिज का विवरण जिसके लिये उसने निविदा प्रस्तुत की है जिसमें निम्न हो
:-
भूस्वामी का नाम
:-
उपखनिज का नाम
:-
तहसील का नाम
/ :-
खनन क्षेत्र का नाम ग्राम
/ :-
गाटा संख्या खण्ड संख्या
( )
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टयर में
:-
विज्ञप्ति में दी गयी खनन योग्य अनुमानित खनिज की मात्रा
. - 15,000/-
च ई निविदा की प्रक्रिया में भाग लेने हेतु अप्रतिदेय आवेदन शुल्क रु० के जमा का चालान।
. (
छ प्री बिड अर्नेस्ट मनी का ड्राफ्ट जिसकी गणना क्षेत्र में आंकलित खनन योग्य मात्रा एवं उप खनिज
25 )
की रायल्टी दर से गुणा कर प्राप्त धनराशि का प्रतिशत होगा
. - :-
ज खनिज के लिये प्रति घनमीटर के लिये दी जाने वाली ई निविदा की दर
( - , 2021
ई निविदा की दर उस खनिज के लिये नियमावली के प्रथम अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट रायल्टी की दर
)
से कम नहीं होगी।
. , / / ,
झ प्रदेश में इमारती पत्थर सैण्ड स्टोन जिसमें पटिया गिट्टी बोल्डर आदि मिश्रित रूप में पाये जाते है के
लिए बोल्डर एवं गिट्टी में से अधिक रायल्टी दर वाले उपखनिज मिट्टी की रायल्टी की दर को आधार मूल्य
( , , )
मानकर ई निविदा की कार्यवाही की जायेगी तथा सैण्ड स्टोन डायमेंशनल पटिया चौका ब्लॉक आदि
- , 2021
की ई निविदा में स्वीकृत अधिकतम रायल्टी दर कम होने की स्थिति में नियमावली की अनुसूची
-1
में निर्धारित रायल्टी दर देयता हेतु प्रभावी होगा।
. , ,
ट जिलाधिकारी या ऐसे अधिकारी द्वारा जो जिलाधिकारी द्वारा तदर्थ प्राधिकृत किया जाय द्वारा जारी
/ ,
खनन अदेयता का प्रमाण पत्र परन्तु जहां आवेदक प्रदेश में पट्टाधारक परिहारधारक न रहा हो वहाँ इस
आशय का शपथ पत्र।
. - /
ठ भू स्वामी को छोड़कर अन्य व्यक्ति फर्म को उस जिले के जिलाधिकारी जहाँ वह स्थायी रूप से निवास
,
करता है से जारी चरित्र प्रमाण पत्र।

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
3
. - /
ड भू स्वामी को छोड़कर अन्य व्यक्ति फर्म को ऋण शोधन क्षमता प्रमाण पत्र या ऋण शोधन क्षमता
, - 25
प्रमाण पत्र के साथ बैक प्रत्याभूति जो ई निविदा की धनराशि के प्रतिशत से कम न हो।
3. -2 -
बिन्दु संख्या में उल्लिखित वांछित अभिलेखों तथा ड्राफ्ट की स्कैन प्रति ई टेण्डर के साथ अपलोड किया जाना
होगा।
4. -2 / -
यदि निविदाकार द्वारा बिन्दु संख्या में वांछित अभिलेख बैंक ड्राफ्ट की प्रति ई निविदा के साथ अपलोड नहीं
- /
की जाती है तो उसकी ई निविदा अस्वीकार कर दी जायेगी। अपलोड किये जाने वाले अभिलेखों की मूल प्रति
प्रमाणित प्रति तथा ड्राफ्ट की मूल प्रति निविदा खोले जाने से पूर्व निर्धारित अवधि के अन्तर्गत जमा करना अनिवार्य
"
होगा।
4. Petitioners have demonstrated, by disclosures in their respective writ
petitions, the required documents were uploaded along with their bids. It is
only in case of petitioner in Writ-C no. 12100 of 2026 (M/s Rudra
Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) there has been contention raised
on behalf of the successful bidder that petitioner did not upload the challan
showing deposit of money to obtain demand draft of Rs. 15,000/-, liable to
be forfeited on the contingency provided. The demand draft was uploaded.
5. Mr. Devbrat Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
in the lead case and submits, rules 26 and 27 do not admit of interpretation to
sustain conduct of respondent authorities, of rejecting his client's bid on
allegation that physical copy of the affidavit had not been submitted. He
relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in
Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd.
, available at . Paragraph 10
vs. State of Odisha 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2368
of said judgment is reproduced below.
"10. A public tender is not a private bargain. It is instrument of
governance, a mechanism through which the State discharges its solemn
duty as trustee of public wealth. Its purpose is not merely procedural
compliance, but maximisation of public value through a process i.e. fair,
transparent and competitive. The obligation of the Tendering Authority is
therefore twofold, namely, to interpret its own terms with consistency and
to ensure that such interpretation advances, not defeats, the object of
tender.
The court must intervene in a case of demonstrable
misconstruction of a tender condition or irrationality which affects the
public interest. When an interpretation of a tender condition narrows
competition and excludes the highest bidder on a ground unsupported
The interpretation of the
by law, the decision making process is vitiated.
terms of tender must, therefore, serve the object and purpose of the tender
mainly to maximise the revenue to the State, when it deals with a natural
resource."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Mr. H.N. Singh learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
4
Writ-C no. 11154 of 2026 (Kant Construction Company vs. State of U.P.
and Others) and Writ-C no. 12260 of 2026 (Kant Construction Company vs.
State of U.P. and Others). He adopts submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee
and submits further, there are preceding rules in respect of physical auction.
The provisions allow for subsequent physical submission of original
documents. Respondent authorities have manipulated the auction process
and for the purpose are seeking to rely on the rules under Chapter IV.
Interpretation of the rules in the Chapter, in particular rules 26 and 27, do not
provide for opening of the bids on technicality, for any of them to be
rejected. He demonstrates from material disclosed that opening of the bids
was to be at 11:30 A.M. on 24th February, 2026. Referring to the checklist
carrying information, inter alia , on rejection of bids he points out, digital
signature was put as on 25th February, 2026. It is clear evidence of the bids
having had earlier been opened, scrutinized and segregated for rejection, to
favour the successful bidders, private respondents in the several writ
petitions.
7. He submits further with reference to clause (4) in the auction notice, it is
in two parts. The first part is mandatory. Omission will lead to rejection. The
second part is for verification. It cannot be said that any omission, for
purpose of verification, can invite rejection. He demonstrates from
disclosures in the writ petition, his client's affidavit was uploaded along with
all other required documents. He explains, in case of existing holders of
mining lease, they had to upload 'no dues certificate' and submit the original
for verification. Those bidders, who do not hold mining lease in the State
were to furnish affidavit to that effect. He reiterates, his client's affidavits
stood uploaded. He also draws attention to paragraph 5 in his client's writ
petition (Writ-C no.11154 of 2026), for specific averment that the original
was also submitted. Paragraph 5 is reproduced below.
"5. That with the hard copy of the tender the petitioner has filed original
notarized affidavit dated 21.02.2026 clearly stating in paragraph no. 3
that no amount of any dues of mining department is against him apart
from other required documents or registration of GST and character
certificate etc."
He submits, on behalf of State, presently posted Senior Mines Officer,
District Sonbhadra has affirmed the counter affidavit. Paragraph 4 from it is
reproduced below.
"4. That the contents of Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ petition are
not admitted in the manner, as stated, hence denied. In reply, thereof, it is
submitted that petitioner has not submitted original hard copy of the

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
5
affidavit regarding no mining dues before prescribed period for opening
of tender bid, hence, the petitioner was found non fulfilling the conditions
mentioned in the tender notice."
Mr. Singh seeks interference.
8. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Chaubey, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner in Writ-C no. 12100 of 2026 (M/s Rudra Enterprises vs State of
U.P. and 5 others). He submits, the check list carries allegation that his client
had not submitted the original draft. The allegation is untrue. The averment
is in paragraph 12. A passage from the paragraph is reproduced below.
" 12......That it is pertinent to mention here that petitioner participated for
vacant mining area no.7 i.e. Araji No.4798 Kha, 4799 Kha, 4800 Kha,
4801, 4802, 4804 Ka, 4804 Ga, 4805 and 4866 Kha in area 1.820
Hectare situated at Village Billi Markundi, Tehsil Obra, District
Sonbhadra submitting a bid of Rs.415/m3 significantly higher than the
base price of 165/m3 and further successfully uploaded all the mandatory
documents on the E-Portal (etender.up.nic.in) on 22.02.2026 and also
physically deposited the same in the Tender Box under departmental
videography but surprisingly 24.02.2026 during the opening the physical
Tender Box the respondents in collusion with a local syndicate, allegedly
removed the petitioner's physical copies of the application fees annexed
with the E-Tender Form and subsequently despite the digital record
proving the existence of all documents the respondents prepared a
technical check list on 25.02.2026 marking the petitioner invalid due to
missing physical documents and further LOI (Letter of Intent) dated
28.02.2026 has been issued in the favour of respondent no.6 (Maa Durga
Mining Works). "
(emphasis supplied)
He then draws attention to paragraph 11 in the counter affidavit affirmed by
aforesaid presently Senior Mines Officer saying that an inquiry has been
constituted. Paragraph 11 from the counter is reproduced below.
"11. That the contents of Paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition are not
admitted in the manner, as stated, hence denied. In reply, thereof, it is
submitted that in pursuance to the representation dated 06.03.2026
submitted by the petitioner, three (3) Members enquiry committee was
constituted by the District Magistrate, directing it to submit its report. It
is further submitted that the enquiry committee is conducting enquiry, and
after receiving report from enquiry committee appropriate action will be

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
6
taken."
He too seeks interference.
9. Mr. Manish Goyal, learned senior advocate Additional Advocate General
appears on behalf of State. He submits, there is no challenge to the e-auction
notice dated 12th January, 2026. It was duly issued and carried the essential
requirements for bids being considered. He too relies on clause 4 in the
notice to submit, petitioners omitted to tender their respective original
affidavits/demand drafts. He refers to our earlier orders dated 24th April and
4th May, 2026. Paragraph 2 from our order dated 24th April, 2026 is
reproduced below.
"2. We have also perused the rejoinder filed. It transpires that date of
physical submission of the documents was not specifically stated by
petitioner. In the circumstances, since there is allegation that the
documents were deposited prior to scheduled date and time of opening
the bids, we require State to produce the file. This is because State relies,
inter alia, rule-26 (b) for contention that the bids were not opened as
found to be technically deficient. Petitioners in the other writ petitions are
represented as are State and private respondents."
The file was produced and on request made by us on order dated 4th May,
2026, inspection of it was allowed to the learned advocates appearing for the
several petitioners. Their inspection did not show submission of the original
documents. On basis of the omission the bids were rejected. In the
circumstances there is no scope for interference.
10. Referring to Shanti Construction (supra) Mr. Goyal draws attention to
paragraphs 14 and 15. Paragraph 14 is reproduced below.
"14. The unsuccessful bidder is a company. It is axiomatic from the stand
taken by the State in its counter, that the unsuccessful bidder had filed the
Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2020-2021. The auction notice
was issued in the midst of the year i.e. on 11.07.2022. The proper
construction of the phrase 'previous Financial Year' therefore, assumes
critical importance. Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Rules requires the bidder to
produce an Income Tax Return of the "previous Financial Year". The said
Rule has to be read in harmony with the provisions of the Income Tax Act,
1961. Under Section 139(1) of the aforesaid Act, a company may file the
Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2021-2022 up to 31st of
October, 2022. As per auction notice, the bids were required to be

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
7
submitted on 18.07.2022. The period for filing the Income Tax Return for
Financial Year 2021-2022 (relevant to Assessment Year 2022-2023) was
yet to expire. Therefore, on the said date the bidder could not have been
expected to file an Income Tax Return for Financial Year 2021- 2022
along with its bid documents, as the statutory period for filing the same
had not expired."
He elaborates, the Supreme Court interpreted on the requirement for
submission of income tax return for financial year 2020-21 required by
therein auction notice dated 11th July, 2022. Appellant before the Supreme
Court was participant in the auction process and it being a company, had
disclosed its balance sheet for the period since, the return could not be
prepared as was to be prepared at a later date in terms of then prevailing
provisions in Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the Supreme Court interfered on
finding that there was compliance. He reiterates, in this case there has been
omission to comply with the essential requirement. Rejection of the bids of
petitioners thus should not be interfered with. He lays emphasis that facts in
this case do not demonstrate misconstruction of a tender condition or
irrationality, which affect the public interest.
11. Mr. Goyal submits, the procedure stands provided in Chapter IV of the
Rules. Drawing attention to clause (d) under rule 23(2) he submits, the
owner is to be given right of first refusal. This procedure had been complied
with in issuance of the LoIs. Any interference will undo actions duly taken
for issuance of the LoIs. Referring to rules 26 and 27 he submits, there is no
specific provision for either virtual or physical documents to be
submitted/accepted. Rule 27 empowers the District Officer or Committee as
the case may be to fix date, time and web portal as determined by the State
Government for, inter alia, conducting e-auction. In the circumstances it
cannot be said that the procedure provided by auction notice dated 12th
January, 2026 are requirements, omission on any of them to be interpreted as
an irregularity. It would amount to reading down the requirements in rule 26.
He relies on views taken by Division Benches of this Court.
(i) Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran vs. State of U.P. available
at , paragraphs 25-27
2023 SCC OnLine All 2033
(ii)
A.S. Traders, Thru Executive Partner Sri Rahul Singh vs. State of
available at
U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Lko. 2025
, paragraphs 21-25
SCC OnLine All 7194

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
8
(iii) Energo Constructions Private Limited vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. available at AIR 2024 All 83 , paragraphs 23,
24, 28 and 29
He submits, the writ petitions be dismissed.
12. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate appears for private
respondent M/s Maa Durga Mining Works. His client has been issued LoI.
He adopts submissions made by Mr. Goyal. He adds on drawing attention to
sub-clause ' in the e-auction notice, the requirement to submit 'no dues
ट'
certificate'/affidavit is an essential condition. With reference to clause (4) in
the notice he lays emphasis on the requirement being essential, as the clause
says, omission to upload will invite rejection. It goes on to further say that
submission of physical documents, prior to opening of the bids, is
compulsory. Thus it is no matter that the sentence on compulsion follows the
sentence providing for rejection. Petitioners did not submit original
documents as was compulsory. They obtained inspection of the file. The
facts are thus demonstrated. The writ petitions be dismissed.
13. Mr. Sinha, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of M/s RSS
Mining Works, another who has also been issued LoI. He adopts
submissions made by Mr. Goyal and Mr. Nandan to submit further,
petitioner in Writ-C no. 12100 of 2026 has not uploaded the challan,
required by sub-clause ' in clause (2) of the notice. The sub-clause is again
च'
reproduced below.
" . - 15,000/-
च ई निविदा की प्रक्रिया में भाग लेने हेतु अप्रतिदेय आवेदन शुल्क रु० के जमा का चालान।"
Hence, there has been omission attracting the mandate of rejection. There be
not interference in this writ petition, to deny his client moving forward under
the LoI issued.
14. Mr. Singh in reply submits, views taken by this Court in the judgments
relied upon are on facts, where there were procedure for initial evaluation of
technical bids, removal of discrepancies, if any on objections and thereafter
opening of the financial bids. The views are distinguishable on facts, as not
applicable to present case in the writ petitions, where the tendering authority
has manipulated the process. He reiterates, original documents were filed but
removed. This was done after evaluation of the bids, where there was no
procedure for putting in technical or financial bids, separately. There is clear

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
9
pleading of submission of original documents and no denial in the counters.
The original documents removed naturally could not be found in the file. He
seeks interference. Mr. Mukherjee in reply submits likewise.
15. There have been several decisions of the Supreme Court declaring the
law on scope of judicial review in respect of tender and distribution of public
largesse/wealth. Relied upon paragraph 10 in (supra)
Shanti Construction
is reiteration of the declaration. Two fold obligation has also been said to
exist. Firstly, the tendering authority is to interpret its own terms with
consistency and to ensure that such interpretation advances, not defeats
object of the tender. The object, said by the Supreme, is to serve purpose of
the tender, which is mainly to maximize the revenue to the State, when it
deals with the natural resource. Above is the context, in which we must see
the facts.
16. We have had demonstration that petitioners' bids were informed to them
as rejected, after the time for opening bids had passed. They were informed
the following day. There thus can be lawful presumption that all the bids
were opened on prior appointed date. This presumption is strengthened on
our acceptance of submission made by Mr. Singh that rules 26 and 27 do not
provide procedure for the bids to be in two parts, technical and financial.
Moving on to the next contention regarding interpretation of clause (4) in the
notice, it can only be that the essential requirement is to upload. Even
assuming there was omission on part of petitioners to submit the original
documents, be it a 'no dues certificate' or affidavit or demand draft or challan
showing deposit of the value to obtain the demand draft, it amounts to a
mere irregularity. To contend that such omission is fatal for consideration of
a bid, when we have already presumed that all the bids had been opened,
gives rise to suspicion of doubtful action. In case of a missing affidavit, the
person swearing it can be called upon to swear another affidavit and on
tangible information with the authority, there can be inquiry for purpose of
the declaration to be found as false. Rule 26(b) provides that a person shall
not be allowed to bid or take part in, inter alia, e-tender against whom
mining dues are outstanding. Petitioners, whose bids were cancelled on
omission to file the affidavit contend there is no question of them having
outstanding dues because they have not undertaken mining operation in the
State prior to making of their bids. In any event the rule requires verification.
The authority interpreting the clause in the rule has, by the auction notice,
required submission of affidavit. Hence, we reiterate, on tangible

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
10
information had, there can be inquiry on an affidavit, original of which if not
submitted/produced as can be called, for purpose of the inquiry. So far as the
demand drafts are concerned, they are instruments purchased on the issuing
bank receiving value thereof. The bids lead to payment by the bidders of
huge amount of revenue, if declared successful. For us to sustain an
objection regarding verification, on omission to deposit the original demand
drafts for respective tender of amount Rs. 15,000/- would be a perverse
finding. In event the demand drafts have been misplaced, they can be re-
issued. Regarding contention of requirement to upload challan in respect of
obtaining issuance of the demand draft (Writ-C no. 12100 of 2026) we see
that there appears to be a mistake in the requirement made. All petitioners
have uploaded their respective demand drafts. As aforesaid, a demand draft
is issued by the bank on value received therefor. To ask for a challan
showing deposit of the money, in compliance with which requirement
petitioners have uploaded scanned copy their respective demand drafts is, in
our view, good compliance of the requirement.
17. We must reiterate, our above presumption is fortified by analysis of the
pleadings. Respective petitioners had specifically stated submission of their
original documents, not specifically denied by the authority. In one case
there has been contention of inquiry launched. We are sure, the authority can
require all petitioners to subject themselves for verification of their
respective documents uploaded but fact remains their respective bids for the
notified areas are higher than the bidders, in whose favour the LoIs have
been issued.
18. We accept submission that views taken earlier in Jai Hanuman
Construction (supra), A.S. Traders (supra) and Energo Constructions
(supra) do not come to aid of respondents inasmuch as they
Private Limited
are distinguishable on facts. (supra) is applicable
Shanti Construction
declaration of law for the tendering authority to consistently interpret the
terms in the auction notice, to fulfill object of maximizing the revenue. We
do have demonstration that there has been misconstruction of clause (4) in
tender notice dated 12th January, 2026. It follows, there must be and we
direct, the LoIs issued in respect of serial nos. 7, 8 and 9 of said tender
notice dated 12th January, 2026 are set aside and quashed. Petitioners will
each deposit re-issued demand drafts for Rs.15,000/- along with certified
copy of this order, to respondent no.1. Thereupon said respondent/concerned
mining authority is directed to issue the LoIs in favour of the petitioners,

WRIC No. 10755 of 2026
11
within three weeks. We direct dispensation of notice for first refusal by the
land owners since, they had not exercised their option in respect of lower
bids, against which the set aside LoIs were issued. We make it clear, within
time prescribed by the LoIs to be issued, the petitioners are to comply with
all requisitions, particularly in respect of deposit of, inter alia, the royalty.
On omission to so deposit, concerned mining authority will forthwith cancel
the LoI, to automatically revive the LoI earlier issued.
19. On above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. The original
documents file earlier handed back, be returned to the office.
May 8, 2026
sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)



(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad