MANSUNGJI LALAJI DHUNKH vs STATE OF GUJARAT, INDUSTRIES AND MINES DEPARTMENT

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15677 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
MANSUNGJI LALAJI DHUNKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT, INDUSTRIES AND MINES DEPARTMENT &
ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS.KRUTI SHAH WITH MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

Date : 23/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah with learned
advocate Mr. Jay Shah on behalf of the petitioner, learned
Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel on behalf of
respondent State.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the
following prayers:-
(A) Admit and allow this petition;
(B) THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO issue writ,
direction or order and call for the original and electronic record
pertaining to second round of the e-auction process of e-auction
bearing reference BNK/OSD/06/2026/314/01 for grant of
Mining Lease bearing name Ranpur Ordinary Sand QL Block 7 in
village – Ranpur, Taluka – Deesa, District – Banaskantha with
time stamps of bids made by all bidders;
(C) THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO issue writ,
direction or order to direction to quash and set-aside the Second
Round (final) e-auction process and results of tender bearing
reference No. BNK/OSD/06/2026/314/01 for grant of Mining
Lease bearing name Ranpur Ordinary Sand QL Block 7 in village
– Ranpur, Taluka – Deesa, District – Banaskantha by declaring
the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the Respondents to
conduct fresh second round of e-auction for the Mining Lease
bearing name BNK/OSD/06/2026/314/01 for grant of Mining
Lease bearing name Ranpur Ordinary Sand QL Block 7 in village
– Ranpur, Taluka – Deesa, District – Banaskantha;
(D) Pending the admission and final hearing of this Petition, this
Hon’ble Court May Be pleased to stay the subsequent and
consequential proceeding in connection to tender bearing
reference No. BNK/OSD/06/2026/314/01 for grant of Mining
Lease bearing name Ranpur Ordinary Sand QL Block 7 in village
– Ranpur, Taluka – Deesa, District – Banaskantha and further be
pleased to direct respondents not to issue Letter of Intent and
execute lease deed in connection to the said mining lease, in the
interest of justice.
(E) THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO grant
such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.”
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3
had issued a tender for grant of quarry lease for ordinary sand
mineral, and whereas the petitioner, being interested in a
particular quarry lease, being DNK/OSD/06/2026/314/01, had
submitted the necessary documents and whereas, vide an
email dated 30.09.2026, the petitioner had been informed that
upon evaluation of the technical bid and initial premium offer
submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was qualified to bid
in the tender as per Clause 7.1A(d) of the tender document.
The petitioner was also informed that as per the tender
conditions, the e-auction was to be scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on
01.10.2026, and whereas there will be an auto-extension of 8
minutes per extension as per the tender document.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, based upon a document
annexed with the petition, which is titled as ‘Winner Report’,
which is the list of the bids submitted by the present
petitioner, that at 16:36:34 hours, the petitioner had
submitted bid for a value of 47.45% of average sale price, and
whereas the auction had ended at 16:44:56 hours. It is also
seen from the said document that one Goswami Kiritkumar
Dineshpuri, who had bid 47.95% of average sale price, had
been declared as a successful bidder.
5. The case of the petitioner being that the petitioner,
though he was interested in bidding further, could not submit
bid after 5 minutes, of the bid submitted by the said
Mr.Goswami Kiritkumar, the petitioner was not provided an
adequate opportunity to submit his bid. It is also the case of
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
the petitioner that petitioner had immediately submitted
representations through email on 01.10.2026 and had
followed up the same, yet no response has been received from
the respondent State.
6. As against the same, learned AGP Ms.Patel, under
instructions of Mr.Abhijeet Dubey present in the Court from
the office of the respondent No.1, has tendered the e-auction
document, from the Commissioner of Geology and Mining in
coordination with the (n)Code Solutions, and whereas it is
pointed out that while the petitioner had submitted his final
bid of 47.45% of average sale price at 16:36:34 hours, the
successful bidder had submitted his bid exactly after 22
seconds, that is 16:36:56 hours, and whereas the auction had
been closed exactly after 8 minutes, i.e. 16:44:56, since no
higher bids had been received.
7. Learned AGP would submit that the auction process
having continued for more than 4 hours, and the petitioner
having submitted his bids all throughout, it is nothing but an
afterthought on behalf of the petitioner to have submitted that
the petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity.
8. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and
perused the documents on record. Before analysing the issue
any further, Clause b (Stage 2: Electronic Auction: Final
Premium Offer), and sub-clause (b) thereof, under the heading
"Conduct of E-Auction", being part of the tender document,
being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced herein
below for benefit:-
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
b. Conduct of e-auction
E-auction is the process of inviting binding Final Premium Offer(s)
from Qualified Bidders through internet for the purpose of
determination of the Preferred Bidder. During this process, the
Qualified Bidder will be able to submit its Final Premium Offer as
many times as it wishes against the same minor mineral block.
The Qualified Bidder will remain anonymous to other Qualified
Bidders participating in the electronic auction process as well as
to (n)Code and Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Government
of Gujarat. The Qualified Bidder will be able to see the prevailing
highest Final Premium Offer against the minor mineral block, but
the name of the highest Qualified Bidder at any point of time will
not be displayed. The Qualified Bidder shall have to put its Final
Premium Offer over and above the displayed highest bid by a
minimum increment of 0.05% to become the highest Qualified-
Bidder. The electronic auction process will have a scheduled start
and close time which will be displayed on screen. A Qualified
Bidder will be able to put its Final Premium Offer after the start of
bid time and till the close time of electronic auction. The current
server time (IST) will also be displayed on the screen. In the event
a Final Premium Offer is received during the last 8 (Eight) minutes
before the scheduled close time of electronic auction, the close
time of electronic auction will be automatically extended by 8
(Eight) minutes from the last received bid time to give equal
opportunity to all other Qualified Bidders. This process of auto
extension will continue till no Final Premium Offer is received
during a period of 8 (Eight) minutes.
For example, assuming that the initial scheduled close time for a
particular electronic auction is 1:00 pm and a Final Premium Offer
is received at 12:55 pm, the scheduled close time shall be revised
to 1:03 pm. Again if a Final Premium Offer is received at 1:01 pm,
the scheduled close time shall be revised to 1:09 pm and so on. In
the event that no further Final Premium Offer is received till 1:09
pm, the electronic auction will close at 1:09 pm. The revised close
time will be displayed on screen and the Qualified Bidders are
advised to keep refreshing its webpage to get the latest
information.
The above example is only illustrative and meant for explaining
the e-auction process only.
During the process of electronic auction, the Bidder shall be
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
required to sign their bids with their respective digital signature
certificate (DSC) and the use of which has been duly authorised
on behalf of the Bidder and which was used at the time of
registration. Any digital signature certificate other than the above
shall not be acceptable for bid submission by the system. Bidders
in their own interest are advised to get themselves acquainted
with the electronic auction process of auction platform provider by
getting their Authorised Representative trained beforehand
through some demo electronic auctions as per Clause 10 of the
Tender Document. “
9. A perusal of the above clause, inter alia , indicates that
the bidding would be on an online portal, and whereas the
qualified bidder, will be able to submit his bids as many times
as he desires, for the same mineral block, and whereas the
details of the bidders would remain anonymous to other
qualified bidders participating in the e-auction process.
10. It also appears that while each of the qualifying bidder
will be able to see the prevailing final premium offer against
the mineral block, but the name of the person who has bid,
would not be available. The said clause also, inter alia ,
requires that the qualified bidder would have to put its final
premium offer over and above the highest bid by a minimum
of 0.05%, that is to say that the increase in the bid have to be
minimum by 0.05%. Importantly, it is mentioned that upon a
bid being received, which is higher than the last bid received,
then the bid time will automatically extend by 8 minutes, i.e.
the other qualified bidders would get a window of 8 minutes
to submit a better offer than the existing best offer, and
whereas if no offers are received within the window of 8
minutes, the highest bidder would be declared as the
successful bidder.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
11. Based upon the above analysis, now we will try to
appreciate the submissions of the respective parties.
12. While the first contention of the petitioner is that the
document, which was received by the petitioner, which
contains details of the bid submitted by the petitioner, inter
alia , indicates that the petitioner had submitted his final bid at
16:36:34 hours, the bidding process was closed at 16:44:56
hours.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that after the final bid of
the successful bidder, the petitioner did not get an adequate
opportunity to submit further bids.
14. As against the same, from the document which has been
tendered by the State across the bar, which is the details of
the bidding process, it clearly appears that the successful
bidder, had submitted his final offer at 16:36:56 hours, i.e.
exactly 22 seconds after the petitioner had put up his final
bid, and whereas exactly 8 minutes thereafter, i.e. at 16:44:56
hours, the auction process had been completed, since there
were no higher bids which had been received.
15. To us, it would appear that since the document, clearly
indicates that the window of 8 minutes, as per the tender
clause which we have referred to hereinabove, had remained
open and no further bids had been received, as could be seen
from the said document, there does not appear to be any error
or anomaly at the end of the State. The e-auction was not
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
abruptly completed after the bid was submitted by the
successful bidder and whereas, on perusing the e-auction
document, we are satisfied that the auction had been
completed after 8 minutes of the final offer submitted by the
successful bidder.
16. As regards the submission on part of the learned counsel
that the petitioner did not receive any adequate opportunity,
in our considered opinion, having analyzed the said document,
it would appear that the bidding process had started at
10:21:18, and had gone on for around four and a half hours,
i.e. having closed at 16:44:56. We have also noticed that the
petitioner, had submitted numerous numbers of bid, and the
process having continued for four and a half hours, and
whereas the petitioner also being able to submit his last bid at
47.45% of average sale price, we find no reason to believe
that there was any technical fault at the end of the State
authorities whereby the petitioner did not receive any
adequate opportunity. If an e-auction process had continued
for around four and a half hours, and the petitioner having bid
25 times in the said e-auction, there was no reason for the
system not to have permitted the petitioner to have submitted
his bid for the 26th time. It would appear to us that at the
relevant point of time, the petitioner, may have deemed it
appropriate not to have bid any further, and whereas it is only
after some time that the petitioner, may have had a rethink
about the entire thing and started submitting emails, etc. as
regards the alleged anomaly in the tender process.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026

C/SCA/15677/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240800042026)
17. Having regard to the document tendered across the bar,
and having seen the nature of the said document, more
particularly the document being the entire list of the bids
received in the e-auction in question, we are of the considered
opinion that no error appears to have been committed by the
State authorities and there is no error or anomaly in the
auction in question. Under such circumstances, in our
considered opinion, no case for interference being made out,
the present petition is disposed of as rejected. The e-auction
document tendered by the State is taken on record.
(MANASH RANJAN PATHAK,ACJ)
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:30 IST 2026