# M/s Suddhtam Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1544 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-02-26 - **Case number:** Writ-C No. 39170 of 2023 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-suddhtam-enterprises-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51744 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-an e-tender-cum-e-auction notice was issued on 11.09.2023 for mining rights in banda district, covering specific plots-four companies 4 All. M/s Suddhtam Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1545 participated-Respondent no.6 offered highest bid of Rs. 231, while the petitioner offered the second highest bid of Rs. 205The petitioner challenged the acceptance of Respondent no.6's bid, citing irregularities, specifically documents submitted (aadhar card, pan card, character certificate) were not self attested, violating tender notice conditions-Held,The chief Treasury Officer Banda had no authority to recommend cancellation of the e-auction as he was not part of the committee-The committee constituted by District Magistrate failed to scrutinize tender documents properly, leading to the financial bid of respondent no.6 being opened despite its noncompliance with condition no. 6of the tender notice-Thus, the petitioner's bid was valid and should have been declared the highest, as it was above the reserve price and complied with all tender conditions-The impugned orders were quashed-The petitioner's bid was ordered to be accepted.(Para 1 to 15) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6) ## Text 1544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES that stamp duty applicable to the residential plot has been paid in the sale deed No.3613/09, this fact cannot be ignored by the authorities below while determining the nature of the land on the date of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed No.3613/09 which is in respect of plot which was part of plot No.64 from which the petitioners have purchased the plot reflects that the plot purchased by the petitioners has the potential to be used for the residential plot on the date of execution of sale deed, and in such view of the fact, this Court is of the view that both the authorities below have not committed any error in determining the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.14,53,410/- 28. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that another sale deed No.8185/09 dated 04.08.2009 has been executed from the same plot i.e. plot no.64 on which the stamp duty applicable to the agricultural land has been has been paid. The said sale deed has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 14.12.2022. Accordingly, it is submitted that the State cannot act arbitrarily and discriminate between the two assessees identically circumstanced in charging stamp duty. 29. The said argument in the opinion of the Court is fallacious and is incorrect. The sale deed No.8185/09 was not placed before the authority below i.e. either before the Collector (Stamp) or before the appellate authority and this has been placed for the first time in the writ petition. This Court is not inclined to accept the said sale deed as evidence inasmuch as if it is treated to be evidence, then the opportunity of hearing has to be given to the respondents to explain under what circumstances the instrument i.e. sale deed No.8185/09 has been charged on agricultural basis. Secondly, the petitioners have not stated whether any proceeding under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act has been drawn against the vendee of sale deed No.8185/09. Thirdly, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot come into play to perpetuate any illegality, and in the present case, there was sufficient material before the authority below to determine that the plot of the petitioners has the potentiality of residential use on the date of execution of sale deed, therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of sale deed No.8185/09. 30. Thus, for the reasons given above, this Court finds that the writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. ---------- (2024) 4 ILRA 1544 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J. Writ-C No. 39170 of 2023 M/s Suddhtam Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, Sri Himanshu Srivastava, Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, Sri Mukesh Prasad (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-an e-tender-cum-e-auction notice was issued on 11.09.2023 for mining rights in banda district, covering specific plots-four companies 4 All. M/s Suddhtam Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1545 participated-Respondent no.6 offered highest bid of Rs. 231, while the petitioner offered the second highest bid of Rs. 205The petitioner challenged the acceptance of Respondent no.6's bid, citing irregularities, specifically documents submitted (aadhar card, pan card, character certificate) were not self attested, violating tender notice conditions-Held,The chief Treasury Officer Banda had no authority to recommend cancellation of the e-auction as he was not part of the committee-The committee constituted by District Magistrate failed to scrutinize tender documents properly, leading to the financial bid of respondent no.6 being opened despite its noncompliance with condition no. 6of the tender notice-Thus, the petitioner's bid was valid and should have been declared the highest, as it was above the reserve price and complied with all tender conditions-The impugned orders were quashed-The petitioner's bid was ordered to be accepted.(Para 1 to 15) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.) 1. Heard Shri Mukesh Prasad, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Tandon, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the letter/order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda as also an Advertisement No.784/Khanij-30, Banda dated 28.10.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Banda. 3. It appears that e-tender-cum-eauction notice no.344/Khanij-30 was published on 11.09.2023 inviting bids for short term permit, also regarding Gata No.62 and 63/1 Area 42.00 acre, Village Khapatiha Kala, Tehsil Pailani, District Banda. 4. In the said e-auction, four companies participated for the aforesaid two plots. The highest bid was that of respondent no.6 M/s G.D.S. Infrastructure through its Proprietor, at Rs.231 while the petitioner's bid at Rs.205 was the second highest. 5. The petitioner is stated to have filed an application stating that the copies of the Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and Character Certificate filed by G.D.S. Infrastructure were not self attested and its bid was therefore irregular, contrary to the tender notice and not liable to be considered. 6. Thereafter, a letter was written on 21.10.2023 by the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda to the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) indicating that the deficiency in the bid documents had not been noticed at the time of opening of the technical bid and thereafter financial bids were wrongly opened. It was recommended that e-auction was cancelled and the fresh e-auction be resorted to. Thereafter a fresh e-auction notice was issued. 7. When the matter came up for admission, the Court directed learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to the role of the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda in the bidding process. 8. A copy of the instructions received have been made available for perusal by the Court. 9. In paragraph 2 of the instructions, it has been stated that the 1546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES District Magistrate, Banda had constituted a Committee to examine the applications received in response to the e-auction notice. This Committee opened the technical bids on 05.10.2023 and found that all required documents were attached along with bid of G.D.S. Infrastructure and other bidders. Thereafter, the financial bids were also opened on 05.10.2023. The bid of the G.D.S. Infrastructure was found to be the highest at Rs.231. The financial bid of G.D.S. Infrastructure was wrongly opened as condition no.6 of the tender notice had not been complied as some documents had not been self attested. 10. On coming to know of this fact that the documents accompanying e-bid of G.D.S. Infrastructure were not self attested, the opinion of the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda was sought, whereupon the letter dated 21.10.2023 was written. The eauction was cancelled and a fresh e-auction notice was issued by the order of the District Magistrate on 27.10.2023, which is also under challenge in this writ petition. 11. From the instructions received, it emerges that a Committee had been constituted by the District Magistrate to process bids received consequent to publication of a e-tender notice. The constitution of this Committee has not been disclosed. However, what clearly emerges from the record is that this Committee did not perform its functions properly and did not scrutinize the tender documents. It was on account of this laxity that the financial bid of the respondent was opened, although it should not have been opened as it did not comply with all the conditions of the etender notice. 12. We also find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the bid of the petitioner was above the reserve price and did not suffer from any legal defect as it complied with all the conditions of the tender notice, the ineligible bid should have been discarded and the petitioner was liable to be declared the highest bidder and was liable to be awarded the contract and in failing to do so, the respondents have committed patent illegality. 13. It is also not clear from the instructions received as to who referred the matter to the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda. It is not the respondent's case that the Chief Treasury Officer was a member of the Committee constituted to examine and process the e-tenders and, therefore, the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda for all practical purposes was an unconcerned person. Therefore, he had no right to recommend cancellation of the e-tender notice as a whole. 14. There is also substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is being penalized for no fault on his part, especially when his bid, amongst all valid bids, was the highest. The respondents have tried to gloss over the laxity and dereliction duty on the part of the Committee constituted to process the etenders received and the petitioner is being penalized for this fault. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby, allowed. The letter/order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda as also the Advertisement No.784/Khanij-30, Banda dated 28.10.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Banda, are hereby quashed with the observation that the petitioners' bid being the highest among all valid and 4 All. Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1547 complete bids, and was above the reserve price, the same was liable to be accepted. 16. It is ordered accordingly. ---------- (2024) 4 ILRA 1547 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. Writ -C No. 39901 of 2018 Om Prakash ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Prateek Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 -Burden of proof in Penal provision-Initial action of respondents was interfered with by this Court- firstly, by passing an interim order and thereafter by setting aside the order impugned itself in 2018 - liberty was granted to the respondents to take a fresh decision- the subsequent report dated 30.04.2018 clearly mentions that the digging depth was 1.30 meters- impugned order passed-casts a 'negative burden' upon the petitioner to establish the permissible depth - concerning digging activity prior to issuance of Government Order dated 24.12.2012 -order impugned is fiscal in nature- the burden to establish the guilt or wrong of the petitioner cannot be shifted to or fastened upon the petitioner to prove negatively- entitled to get the benefit of Government Order dated 24.12.2012-impugned order quashed. Writ Petition allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Ramvir Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 others, 2016 (5) AWC 5431 2. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs Amin Chand Payrelal, AIR 1999 SC 1008 3. Tolaram Relumal and another vs State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496 4. M/s Virtual Soft System Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2007 (9) SCC 665 5. Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, 2017 (2) SCC 629 6. Excel Crop Care Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India and others, 2017 (8) SCC 47 7. Isher Das vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295 8. Assistant Commissioner vs Velliappa Textiles, (2003) 132 Taxman 165 9. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and others vs Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. and another, AIR 2003 SCW 6696 (Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.) 1. Heard Shri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for all the respondents and perused the record. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and, therefore, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned dated 15.11.2018 whereby the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bulandshahr (respondent No. 2) has levied upon him a sum of Rs. 1,46,360/- (Royalty Rs. 21,060 + Mineral Value Rs.