Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sanjay Yadav, B.K. Shrivastava, JJ.
Sanuraga Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26919 of 2019, 26939 of 2019, 4734 of 2020
Decided On : 24-08-2020
Stamp Duty - Bid Rejection - Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019 - Section 15, Section 23C, Section 9B - The court discussed the essentiality of appropriate stamp duty on 'Pradhikar Patra' and upheld the rejection of bids for non-compliance. The employer's right to enforce tender terms was emphasized, and the rejection was deemed justified. The court cited various decisions to support its conclusion, highlighting the employer's privilege to interpret tender documents and the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, had their bid applications for sand quarry lease rejected for non-furnishing of 'Pradhikar Patra' with appropriate stamp duty. They sought direction to quash the rejection order and consideration of financial bid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of bids for non-compliance with essential conditions, including appropriate stamp duty, was justified. It emphasized the employer's right to enforce tender terms and the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters.
Issues: The main issue was whether appropriate stamp duty on 'Pradhikar Patra' could be considered an ancillary or non-essential condition, and whether the rejection of bids for non-compliance was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employer's right to enforce tender terms and the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters justified the rejection of bids for non-compliance with essential conditions, including appropriate stamp duty.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Yadav, J. - Since common issue arises for consideration in these batch of writ petitions, accordingly, they were heard analogously and are decided by this common order. Respective petitioners are collectively addressed as 'petitioners'. These petitioners, which are the Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, suffer rejection of their bid applications for lease of group of sand quarry at Sidhi, Singrauli and Panna Districts for non-furnishing of 'Pradhikar Patra' with appropriate stamp duty of Rs.1000/-.
2. Relevant facts briefly are that, the respondent/M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd., a Corporation established by the State of Madhya Pradesh on October 5, 2019, invited e-Tender for auction of group of sand quarries in 43 districts. The controversy in these batch of writ petitions relates to group of sand quarry situated in Districts Sidhi, Singrauli and Panna. The procedure and period of e-Tender of the group of sand quarry was as per the stipulations contained in Rule 8 of Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019 (for short "Rules of 2019") framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 and Section 23C read with Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 vide Notification No.F 19-2/2019/XII-1 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 30.08.2019.
3. The NIT stipulated various terms and conditions to be adhered to by the respective bidders.
4. The relevant, in the present context, being Clauses 5 and 6 of the NIT are reproduced for ready reference :
5. Furthermore, NIT contained various Annexures of which Annexure 5, 'Pradhikar Patra', which is relevant in the present matters was to be furnished only by Company/Partnership/Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) on non-judicial stamp paper of appropriate value. Annexure 5 is reproduced below for ready reference :
6. It is further revealed from material on record that as stipulated in NIT dated 05.10.2019, a pre-bid meeting was held on 15.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 to resolve queries and doubts raised by the prospective participants. As regards to doubts about the stamp duty to be affixed on "Pradhikar Patra", it was resolved to be executed on Rs.1000/- stamp paper.
7. It is also pertinent to note that NIT also contained Clause 27 which stipulated for correction in the tender documents before last date of submission of tender.
8. Petitioners submitted their online bids along with the relevant documents before last date which was extended from 08.11.2019 to 26.11.2019.
9. That, on 05.12.2019, these petitioners were informed that their bid for the tender for Sidhi/Singrauli group of sand quarry has been rejected during Technical evaluation by the duly constituted Committee and declared disqualified for financial bid opening for the reason that Annexure 5 has not been adequately stamped as per terms and conditions of a tender document and instruction. In case of Panna group of sand quarry, the petitioner was informed on 24.12.2019 that he is not qualified for financial bid opening for the reason abovementioned.
10. The rejection of bid is the cause for filing these petitions, seeking direction to quash the rejection order and direction for consideration of financial bid.
11. It be noted that in furtherance to acceptance of bid of the eligible persons, who are arrayed as private respondent in respective petitions, steps have been taken as stipulated in Rules 11, 12 and 13 of Rules of 2019, such as depositing of 50% amount of the highest tender amount, 25% whereof is the EMD, statutory permission which include mining plan, environmental clearance, water and air consent and the permissible quantity.
12. Be that as it may. Precise submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the stipulation as to appropriate stamp duty on 'Pradhikar Patra' being a non-essential ancillary condition, was a defect which being curable in nature, rejection of bid for a defic
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
