SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(MP) 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
HEMANT GUPTA, CJ, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.
M/s Goel Roadways - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11136 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri Ashish Anand Barnard, Deputy Advocate General.

The valuation of immovable property and net worth certificate compliance with tender document requirements are crucial for eligibility in mineral block bidding.

Headnote:

TENDER - Mineral Block Bidding - Auction Rules, Schedule I - Clause 5(b)(c) Explanation 4 - Clause 5(b)(c) - Rule 6 - Net worth certificate, valuation of immovable property, and eligibility conditions discussed in the judgment.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • The petitioner challenged a notice dated 10.05.2018 which published a list of technically qualified bidders for Mineral Blocks Hinauti-1 and Hinauti-2, excluding the petitioner on grounds of non-technical qualification (!) .
  • The Technical Evaluation and Tender Approval Committee (TETAC) rejected the petitioner's bid for both blocks because the computation of Net Worth in the submitted certificate did not adhere to the prescribed methodology detailed in "Clause 5(b)(c) Explanation 4" of the Tender document (!) (!) .
  • The petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm of Shri Motilal Goel, and eligibility required a Net Worth exceeding INR 1,17,68,791 calculated based on the Value of Estimated Resources (!) (!) .
  • The tender document stipulated that for an individual, the Net Worth certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant must include a list of all immovable properties owned by the individual along with their valuation, supported by an undertaking on stamp paper confirming the properties are un-encumbered (!) (!) (!) .
  • The petitioner initially submitted a Net Worth certificate (Annexure P/3) which listed the total value of immovable properties as 86 Lacs but did not provide a specific list of properties with individual valuations or the required undertaking (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • The Respondent communicated on 13th April, 2018, requesting a revised Net Worth certificate stating the value of immovable properties at the prevailing circle rate, supported by true copies of published circle rates, along with the required undertaking (!) (!) .
  • The petitioner submitted a revised certificate (Annexure P/6) dated 18.04.2018 showing a total Net Worth of Rs. 1,03,72,151, which met the monetary threshold but still failed to disclose the valuation of each specific immovable property or include the list of properties as mandated (!) (!) .
  • The Court held that the requirement for valuation at the prevailing circle rate was not an additional condition but a clarification on the method of valuation required by the tender document's categorical instruction to disclose a list of properties with their valuation (!) (!) .
  • Since the submitted certificates did not show the valuation of each un-encumbered immovable property as required, the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility conditions, and the rejection was found to be bona fide and within the domain of expert decision-making (!) (!) .
  • Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as it lacked merit (!) (!) .

ORDER :

Hemant Gupta, CJ.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure P-7) whereby a list of technically qualified bidders in respect of Mineral Block – Hinauti-1 (Compartment 767) (Limestone) and Mineral Block – Hinauti-2 (Compartment 766) (Limestone) was published. Since the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the list, thus the bid of the petitioner stands rejected on the ground that it is not technically qualified.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the minutes of the sixth meeting of Technical Evaluation and Tender Approval Committee held on 7th May, 2018 wherein bid of the petitioner has been rejected in respect of two notice inviting tenders by assigning the reasons. The relevant extract of the said minutes dated 7th May, 2018 is reproduced as under:-

“5. The list of Bidders declared as Not Technically Qualified Bidders (and the reason thereof) by TETAC is as below. The same is also placed at Annexure 2.

S. No.

Bidder

Mineral Block

Reason for non-selection as TQB

 *** *** ***

3.

Goel Roadways

Hinauti-1

In the net worth certificate submitted by the Bidder the computation of the Net worth is not as per the prescribed computation methodology detailed in “Clause 5(b)(c) Explanation 4” of the Tender document.

 *** *** ***

5.

Goel Roadways

Hinauti-2

In the net worth certificate submitted by the Bidder the computation of the Net worth is not as per the prescribed computation methodology detailed in “Clause 5(b)(c) Explanation 4” of the Tender document.

mitted by the Bidder the computation of the Net worth is not as per the prescribed computation methodology detailed in “Clause 5(b)(c) Explanation 4” of the Tender document.

3. The petitioner is a sole Proprietorship Firm of Shri Motilal Goel. The relevant conditions of eligibility as per tender document to participate in the online tender process is as under:-

“5. Eligibility

Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Auction Rules, the eligibility for participating in the e-auction shall be as follows:

(a) The Bidder must meet the Conditions specified in Section 5 which is quoted below:

*** *** ***

(b) The Bidder must meet the terms and conditions regarding eligibility as stipulated in Schedule I of the Auction Rules for e-auction of Mineral Block for grant of Mining Lease as quoted below. Accordingly, the net worth of the Bidder must be more than INR 1,17,68,791 (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One), calculated in accordance with the following conditions, as applicable;

a. If the Value of Estimated Resources equal or more than one thousand crore rupees, the applicant, including an individual, shall have a net worth more than 2 per cent of Value of Estimated Resources.

b. If the Value of Estimated Resources is less than one thousand crore rupees but more than one hundred crore rupees, the applicant, including an individual, shall have a net worth more than 1 per cent. of Value of Estimated Resources.

c. If the Value of Estimated Resources is less than or equal to one hundred crore rupees, the applicant, including an individual, shall have a net worth of more than 0.5 per cent. of the Value of Estimated Resources.

Explanation:

(1) In case an applicant is a subsidiary of another company incorporated in India, the net worth of such holding company may also be considered:

Provided that, in such case, the applicant shall continue to be a subsidiary of such holding company until such time the applicant meets the aforementioned net worth threshold.

(2) In case of a company, the net worth shall be the sum of paid up share capital and the free reserves as per the audited balance sheet of the financial year ended immediately preceding the date of issuance of notice inviti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top