State authorities must interpret tender conditions to maximize public revenue and promote competition. Withholding or rejecting bids for minor technical omissions—such as physical document submission when digital uploads confirm compliance—constitutes an irrational process and a misconstruction of tender terms subject to judicial intervention.

Judgment :

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 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.

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. vs. State of Odisha , available at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2368. Paragraph 10 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 by law, the decision making process is vitiated. The interpretation of the 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 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 r