# Smt. Sarita Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 190 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-08 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 12311 of 2026 - **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Satya Veer Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sarita-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54441 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 24. By way of the amendments dated 25.03.2021 and 20.12.2017, created a new disability, by virtue of which the said relaxation at the instance of the State Government, was confined eventually to a period of 8 years from the date of purchase of the stamp. 25. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and the undisputed position that the judgment dated 06.03.2025 has attained finality, which in clear terms provided, that the petitioners' claim cannot be avoided for technical reasons and is entitled to the benefit of refund of the stamp duty, this Court is inclined to hold that the disability which is created by the amendment dated 20.12.2017 and 25.03.2021 cannot be applied, even retrospectively. 26. In the facts of the present case, though by the time the petitioner had moved their application for refund, the new amendments were already in place, but the time spent in pursuing the authorities to enter into a Tripartite Agreement and eventually being rejected, for no fault of their own but that of the builder, the disability which is created by the subsequent amendment, cannot be enforced, against the petitioners, in the facts of the present case, as also held by the Apex Court, in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (Supra); and for the reasons stated in the judgment dated 06.03.2025, more particularly in para-9 in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024, between the same parties, which has attained finality, the order dated 29.09.2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents to refund the stamp in terms of the application dated 27.04.2024 within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 27. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 190 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. Writ C No. 12311 of 2026 Smt. Sarita Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether cancellation of the petitioner's highest bid in e-auction for mining lease under Rule 28(3) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 was arbitrary? HEADNOTES Civil Law - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 - Rules 23(4), 28(3): - Writ Petition under Article 226 - against order of the District Magistrate cancelling petitioner's highest bid in e-auction and subsequent notification for fresh auction, seeking quashing 4 All. Smt. Sarita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 191 of the cancellation as arbitrary - petitioner had bid Rs. 361/- per cubic meter against reserved price of Rs. 140/- for Arazi no. 12MI, which was more than double the reserve and higher than past bids in 2023-2025 - The authority cancelled auction relying on comparative higher bids in other plots - whether such cancellation under Rule 28(3) was arbitrary or justified - Petitioner pleaded arbitrariness and violation of Rule 23(4) - State countered relying on Indore Vikas Praadhikaran that highest bidder has no vested right - Court finds that, cancellation lacked nexus to rationale, as comparative bids were from dissimilar plots and no counter was filed to petitioner's factual averments - court emphasize that things were done in a proper manner - held, cancellation arbitrary and unsustainable - hence, impugned order and subsequent notification are quashed - writ petition, allowed with consequences to follow. Leading WP - Allowed & Connected WP - Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Indore Vikas Praadhikaran v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust, AIR 2025 SC 322 Golden Food Products India v. State of U.P., AIR 2026 SC 335 LIST OF ACTS Constitution of India - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 LIST OF KEYWORDS Writ Petition, Auction cancellation, highest bidder, vested right, arbitrariness, public revenue, reserved price, judicial review, mining lease, certiorari, Allowed. CASE ARISING FROM Cancellation of petitioner's highest bid in e-auction dated 17.02.2026 for mining lease in Arazi no. 12MI, Village Chakalathia, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur. Impugned order dated 19.03.2026 by District Magistrate cancelling auction and fresh notification dated 20.03.2026. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Counsel for Respondent(s): - Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.) 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 19th March, 2026 made by respondent no.2 (the District Magistrate) under rule 28(3) in Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 as well as subsequent notification for e-tender-cum-auction dated 20th March, 2026. Petitioner says, she was highest bidder in the auction for mining lease in respect of area under serial no. 15 in eauction notice dated 17th February, 2026. Reserved price was Rs. 140/- per cubic meter. She had made bid of Rs. 361/- per cubic meter. The entire process was cancelled, purportedly based on opinion formed by the authority. Arbitrariness is contended. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned advocate appear on behalf of petitioner. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. 2. The writ petition was moved on 1st April, 2026. Paragraphs 2 to 4 from order made that day are reproduced below. "2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner can put in her bid against the fresh tender. He opposes interference. 192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 3. There are requisites for putting in bids. Petitioner has already complied with the requisitions in putting her earlier bid against the cancelled tender. Furthermore, on query we have ascertained that reserved price was fixed. After fixation of reserved price and getting petitioner's bid declared highest at more than double of it, State needs to explain basis of its opinion. 4. The fresh tender process will remain stayed till next date of hearing. State will be heard on adjourned date." Today, Dr. Tripathi submits, contention of his client is supported by declaration of law made by the Supreme Court. On query regarding counter he submits, he will proceed to argue on basis of instructions received. He hands them up. He submits, clear declaration of law was that a highest bidder does not have vested right to have the lease granted in her favour. There was no arbitrariness in the decision taken in interest of public revenue. 3. Dr. Tripathi relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) Vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust reported in AIR 2025 SC 322, paragraphs 12 to 15. He submits, there is clear declaration of law that a highest bidder does not have a vested right for her bid to be accepted nor to restrain the authority from cancelling the process in interest of public revenue. This was done upon evaluation of the bids received in the auction held pursuant to said notification dated 17th February, 2026. It came to notice of the authority that similar areas had yielded bids for mining lease at excess of Rs. 400/- per cubic meter. It was good basis for cancelling the auction process, on opinion duly formed. On query he hands up his instructions dated 7th April, 2026 with copy to Mr. Khare and submits, pages 3 to 5, in the instructions brief, contain a chart of leases granted for minor minerals. 20 leases have been tabulated. Revenue generated on premium for the leases is in excess of Rs. 400/- per cubic meter for every lease granted. In fact, some leases were granted for premium calculated at excess of Rs. 700/- per cubic meter. Thus, there was tangible basis for cancelling the process and issuing fresh notice for auction. 4. Mr. Khare in reply draws attention to paragraph 17 in the writ petition. The paragraph is reproduced below. "17. That earlier in the same arazi no 12MI, situated at village chakalathia (Bhulie), tehsilchunar, District-Mirzapur, 3 mining lease were allotted through e tender cum e-auction in the year 2025, 2023, by the respondents authorities, in which highest bid were Rs.-151, and Rs.-123, and Rs.-112, on fixed reserve price of Rs.110." He submits, no counter has been filed. The tabulation of other leases cannot be relied upon as basis for the auction to be cancelled. It was done arbitrarily considering highest bids received in previous years (2023-2025) were at maximum Rs. 151/- per cubic meter. He lays emphasis that reserved price for auction of lease granted for aforesaid periods was Rs. 110/- per cubic meter. He lays emphasis that said reserved prices and earlier bids were in respect of the Arazi. Mr. Khare then draws attention to rule 23(4). The sub-rule is reproduced below. "Rule 23. 4 All. Smt. Sarita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 193 .....(4) The District Officer shall get the area or areas declared under sub-rule (1), evaluated for quality and quantity of mineral for fixing minimum bid or offer by the Director, Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh or by an officer authorised by him before the date fixed for e-tender/eauction/e-tender-cum-e-auction." (emphasis supplied) Mr. Khare relies on Golden Food Products India vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2026 SC 335, paragraphs 25, 27 and 32. He submits, there be interference for issuance of certiorari. 5. Rule 28(3) is reproduced below. "Rule 28. ........(3) If any bid or offer in e-tender/e-auction/e-tender-cum-e-auction is not satisfactory in the opinion of the District Magistrate, he may reject all the bids and offers in e-tender/e-auction/etender-cum-e-auction and order for fresh." State contends that its functionary duly acted on opinion formed, to exercise discretion for rejecting all the bids and offers in the e-auction, to order for fresh. For purpose of the writ petition, instructions were issued and handed up, followed through by argument made upon reliance on Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (supra). The chart of premiums on leases granted are in respect of areas other than the Arazi, in respect of which the cancelled auction was notified. No counter has been filed on specifically denying statements made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, nor is there any reference thereto in the instructions brief. We have been shown rule 23(4), requiring fixation of reserved price, upon evaluation of quality and quantity of minerals. From averments made in said paragraph of the petition, we see that bids received in years 2023-2025 were a little above the reserved price at Rs. 110/- per cubic meter. Said reserved price stood revised at Rs. 140/- per cubic meter. Petitioner's highest bid was more than double of the revised reserved price. We must presume that there was necessity to re-evaluate and the revised reserved price was duly fixed. 6. In Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (supra), declaration of law was that a highest bidder does not have vested right to have contract declared as made pursuant thereto. In that case, there was fact of arrears outstanding, not noticed by the authority fixing the reserved price. Apart from that, the facts also included conscious omission of State in not having issued allotment letter. The Supreme Court found that the Tender Evaluation Committee had discovered the former omission and therefore did not allot, to proceed to cancel. The Supreme Court said that judicial review cannot be used to substitute such decision made in interest of public revenue. There were several authorities relied upon to make the declaration. Consistently, the Supreme Court also said that judicial review is possible, where the procedure or manner adopted for cancellation was found to be, amongst others, arbitrary. 7. In Golden Food Products India (supra), Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (supra) was referred to. Dispute in that case was, auction was held and notices issued in respect of plots, which were dissimilar in size but carrying same reserved price. The Supreme Court found, smaller plots had many 194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES bidders, while there were few in respect of the larger plots. Appellant before the Supreme Court made bid a little in excess of the reserved price. The bid was cancelled on the basis of bids received in excess of appellant's bid but, in respect of smaller plots. The Supreme Court, in those facts found, the basis of action of the authority to cancel not having nexus to rationale or reason. Paragraph 32 from the judgment is reproduced below. "32. An auction process has a sanctity attached to it and only for valid reasons that the highest bid can be discarded in an auction which is otherwise held in accordance with law. If a valid bid has been made which is above the reserve price, there should be a rationale or reason for not accepting it. Therefore, the decision to discard the highest bid must have a nexus to the rationale or the reason. Merely because the authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest bidder had bid cannot be a reason to discard the highest bid. In the instant case, no other party had placed a bid higher than the appellant herein. There was no infirmity in the conduct of the auction. No other party had complained about the process of auction conducted by the GDA-respondent No.2. The bid offered by the appellant herein was the highest and above the reserve price. In the circumstances, the said bid ought to have been accepted by GDA- respondent No.2 rather than cancelling the same without notice to the appellant herein. Hence, the cancellation of the bid submitted by the appellant herein is quashed." (emphasis supplied) 8. We have demonstration on facts undisputed that reserved price was presumably duly fixed, at Rs. 140/- per cubic meter for the Arazi in question. It was notified for auction on aforesaid notice dated 17th February, 2026, listed under serial no. 15. Immediately preceding earlier years had brought in bids less than that of petitioner, who had bid Rs. 361 per cubic meter. As aforesaid, the bid was more than double than the revised reserved price fixed. Reliance by State on higher bids received against other plots have not been demonstrated to be on same basis of quantity or quality, in respect of the mineral to be mined. As such, we do find arbitrariness in the opinion formed. Impugned cancellation itself does not disclose any basis for the opinion. The subsequent instructions have also not met with the requirement of demonstration that things were done in a proper manner. 9. Impugned order dated 19th March, 2026 as well as notification for e-tender-cum-auction dated 20th March, 2026 are set aside and quashed. Consequences to follow. 10. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 194 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Application U/S 528 No. 1352 of 2026 Brikesh Pandey ...Applicant Versus C.B.I., Lko. ...Opposite Party