Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 728
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
M/s Sri Venkateswara Constructions – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5540 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12174 of 2023] With Civil Appeal No. 5541 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18198 of 2023]
Decided On : 25-04-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Ramesh P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR Mr. Preetish Sahu, Adv. Mr. Ramesh P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, AOR
The court upheld the validity of the tender process, confirming that the petitioner complied with all requirements while the respondent failed to do so, thus reversing the High Court's decision.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2022 - Clause 5 and Clause 7 - Tender process for Karangadihi Stone Quarry - The High Court set aside the Tahasildar's order declaring the petitioner as the successful bidder, citing non-compliance with tender conditions by the respondent no. 4 - The petitioner submitted the latest available Income Tax Return and a valid GST no dues certificate, while the respondent no. 4 failed to provide a proper GST certificate and submitted an incorrect Income Tax Return - The High Court's decision was deemed erroneous as the petitioner met the tender requirements. (Paras 7, 10, 20, 24)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the tendering authority's discretion should not be interfered with unless the decision is arbitrary or irrational - The Tahasildar's decision was found to be reasonable and compliant with the tender conditions. (Paras 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected as the highest bidder for the Karangadihi Stone Quarry, while the respondent no. 4's bid was rejected due to non-compliance with tender requirements. The High Court quashed the Tahasildar's order, prompting the petitioner to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner complied with all tender conditions, while the respondent no. 4 did not.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner complied with the tender conditions and whether the High Court's interference was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner met the tender requirements, and the High Court's decision to quash the Tahasildar's order was incorrect.
Result: Appeals allowed. The order impugned is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the order dated 18.05.2023 in Writ Petition No. 32063/2022 whereby the High Court of Orissa allowed the petition preferred by the respondent no. 4 herein and has thereby set aside the orders impugned and in addition has directed for fresh tender in respect of Karangadihi Sand Quarry.
3. The factual background is that on 18.07.2022 the Tahasildar, Banspal (Respondent No. 2 herein) floated an auction notice for long term lease of Karangadihi Stone Quarry for a period of five years, i.e. from the financial year 2022-23 to 2026-27. The last date of submission of bid was fixed to 04.08.2022 and the date of opening of bid was fixed to 05.08.2022. The auction notice specified the list of documents to be enclosed by the bidders along with the bid application. The important documents which are in question in the present case are:
“5. Income Tax Return of Previous Financial Year in which the annual income shall not be less than the royalty mentioned in schedule-1 as per annual Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) of minor minerals and additional charge offered in the application of the applicant or Bank Guarantee with 18 months validity which shall not be less than the royalty mentioned in schedule-1 as per annual Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) of minor minerals and additional charge offered in the application by the applicant and the applicant shall furnish details of other immovable property [Income Tax Return of Previous Financial Year showing annual income/Requisite Extent of Bank Guarantee = Minimum Guaranteed Quantity X (Offered Additional Charge + Royalty)]
7. The bidder shall furnish a certificate/letter from the concerned GST jurisdictional officer that no GST dues are pending against such bidders.”
4. The tender drop box was opened, on 05.08.2022 at 11.30 A.M. by the selection committee, comprising of Tahasildar, Banspal, Addl. Tahasildar, Banspal and Revenue Inspector in presence of applicants or their representatives. Five sealed envelopes were found to be submitted by Dileswar Behera, Anil Khirwal, Soumyajit Mohanty, M/s Sri Venkateswar Construction (petitioner herein) and M/s P.K. Minerals (P) Ltd. (respondent no. 4 herein).
5. On scrutiny of the documents, it was found by the Tahsildar in its order dated 05.08.2022 that bids of Dileswar Behera, Anil Khirwal, Soumyajit Mohanty were not accompanied with required documents. It was further found that petitioner herein has quoted the highest additional charge at rate of Rs. 589/- and the respondent no. 4 herein has quoted the second highest additional charge at rate of Rs. 221/-. Consequently, the petitioner was selected and declared as the successful bidder. The reasons given by the Tahsildar for declaring the petitioner as the successful bidder and for rejecting the bid of respondent no. 4 herein are reproduced below:
“The Serial No. 04, M/s P.K Minerals Ltd. Md Soumya Ranjan Pahi. of Susila Saw Mill Campus, Keonjhar the 2nd highest bidder have not submitted any letter or certificate from the concerned GST Jurisdictional authority. In the advertisement No. 1895 dated 18.07.2022 of tender call notice, the bidders were asked to furnish a certificate/letter from concerned GST jurisdictional officer that no GST dues are pending against such bidders. But it is found that he has submitted only a photocopy of GST portal site from internet , which can't be considered as certificate or letter from the concerned GST jurisdictional Officer. Hence the case of 2nd highest bidder is not considered.
On the other hand, SL No. 05, M/s Sri Venkateswara Constructions Managing Partner Ganta Naga Subrahamanyeswar Rao, Rutisila, District-Keonjhar who quoted the highest rate of additional charge @ Rs. 589/- has submitted all requisite documents along with the IT return of assessment year 2021-22, which needs to be clarified in conformity with tender advertisement. On enquiry M/s Sri Venkateswara Constructions M
