IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 18 OF MARCH, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 48901 of 2025 SAHAKAR GLOBAL LTD Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nalin Kohli - Senior Counsel (through VC) and Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Counsel with Shri Shoeb Hasan Khan, Shri Rachit Kumar Soni, Shri Shanky Agrawal, Shri Siddharth Shukla and Shri Harsh Shukla - Advocates for petitioner.

Shri Prashant Singh - Advocate General with Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 3/State.

Shri Nilesh Yadav - Additional Advocate General (through VC ) for respondents No.2 and 4/MP State Mining Corporation.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 1880 of 2026 M/S DHANLAXMI MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate with Shri Shubham Manchani - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Prashant Singh - Advocate General with Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 3/State.

Shri Nilesh Yadav - Additional Advocate General (through VC ) for respondents No.2 and 4/MP State Mining Corporation.

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice Petitioners have filed the subject petitions impugning communication dated 05.12.2025 whereby the tender inviting authority had decided to nullify the tender process that was initiated with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 18.09.2025.

2. The contentions of the petitioners primarily are that petitioners were the highest bidders for the respective blocks of sand mines which were tendered in different districts and despite petitioners being the highest bidders, the tender process has been canceled without assigning any reason.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contend that since the petitioners were the highest bidders, there is no justification to arbitrarily nullify the tender process.

4. In W.P. No.1880 of 2026 when the petition was listed on 20th January 2026, respondents were directed to file a brief reply disclosing the reasons behind cancellation of the entire tender process along with the necessary note sheets. Reply has been filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 1880 of 2026 and same reply has been adopted in W.P. No. 48901 of 2025.

Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that since the tender process for both the blocks was nullified by the same decision, common reply is relied upon.

5. For the purposes of expedition, reference may be had to the reply submitted in W.P. No. 1880 of 2026. Though the reply raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petitions, we are considering primarily the reasons recorded in the reply for passing of the impugned order nullifying the tender process.

6. This relevant portion reads as under :

(PART B):- REASONS FOR PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER i. That against the NIT floated 18.09.2022, the petitioner (M/s Dhanshri Merchandise Private Limited) has filed W.P. No. 49937/2025 who has participated for group Katni while petitioner (Sahakar Global Limited) has filed W.P. No.48901/2025 who has participated for the group Shahdol. That it is observed that earlier also the similar tender is being issued for tender quantity of 2000000 of group Katni,wherein the reserve price was 500000000, wherein the petitioner Dhanlakshmi Merchandise Private Limited has quoted the highest price and the rate quoted by him is 323.883 rupees per cubic meter and in the current tender proceedings the petitioner (Dhanlakshmi Merchandise Private Limited) has quoted a price of Rs. 540741111 @ 270.371 rupees per cubic meter. Thus, now, being an H1 bidder, he has quoted fewer prices than the previous bid. Similarly, for the group Shahdol earlier, the petitioner (Sahakar Global Limited) has quoted 391.151 rupees per cubic meter in the previous tender and in the current tender, the petitioner (Sahakar Global Limited) has coded 273.