Disposed¶19

M/S Shiv Giri Traders v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2026WRIC/11578/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim order dated 07.04.2026 in WRIT - C No. 11578 of 2026, M/S Shiv Giri Traders v. State of U.P. Challenge to cancellation under rule 28(3), Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 2021, of auction and of highest bid of Rs.281/- per cubic meter declared unsatisfactory; e-tender notice dated 17.02.2026 fixed reserved price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter across 20 areas while State claimed adjoining-area bids above Rs.400/- per cubic meter; State directed to explain discrepancy; listed 16.04.2026; interim order to continue; no precedent cited; no final merits ruling.

What did the court decide?

Adjournment granted for the State to explain the reserved-price discrepancy; matter listed on 16th April, 2026 as fresh; interim order to continue till next date of hearing. ¶19

M/S Shiv Giri Traders vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Adjournment granted for the State to explain the reserved-price discrepancy; matter listed on 16th April, 2026 as fresh; interim order to continue till next date of hearing.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the auction and of the petitioner's highest bid of Rs.281/- per cubic meter as unsatisfactory under rule 28(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 was justified, and why a uniform reserved price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter was fixed across all 20 areas when the State claims revenue in excess of Rs.400/- per cubic meter.

¶18

Court's answer

Interim factual observation: from the e-tender notice, the reserved price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter was stated in respect of all 20 areas for which the notice was published, and the State was called upon to explain the discrepancy with its claim of revenue above Rs.400/- per cubic meter.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ.), WRIT - C No. 11578 of 2026, M/S Shiv Giri Traders v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, order dated April 7, 2026 - Interim order in a challenge to the cancellation, pursuant to rule 28(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021, of an e-auction for minor mineral areas and of the petitioner's highest bid of Rs.281/- per cubic meter as 'unsatisfactory' on the opinion of the authority. The e-tender notice dated 17th February, 2026 had fixed a uniform reserved price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter across all 20 areas, while the State stated that bids of approximately above Rs.400/- per cubic meter had been made and accepted in adjoining areas. The Court directed the State to explain why the reserved price was set at Rs.140/- per cubic meter across the board despite the claimed realisations exceeding Rs.400/- per cubic meter, granted an adjournment, listed the matter for 16th April, 2026 as fresh, and continued the interim order till the next date of hearing. No final determination on merits; no precedent cited.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11578 of 2026

¶3

M/S Shiv Giri Traders

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Chandan Tripathi	Sharma,	Soumyesh	Dutt
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 29

¶9

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶10

Mr. Manish Goyal, learned senior advocate, Additional Advocate General appears for State. He submits, petitioner's challenge is against the administrative action taken to cancel the auction process on finding, there were less number of bidders and highest bid received was unsatisfactory. This power is there as conferred by rule 28(3) in U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. On query regarding fixation of reserved price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter, where petitioner's highest bid is Rs.281/- per cubic meter, Mr. Goyal draws attention to, inter alia, paragraph 15 in the counter dated 15th April, 2026. The paragraph is reproduced below.

¶11

"15. That it is further submitted that base price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter in respect of building stone/stand stone is determined as base price of Royalty by the notification dated 04.02.2026 by promulgation of UP. Minor Minerals (Concession) 2nd Amendment rules 2026. It is further submitted that in the notification dated 17.02.2026, the base price of royalty @140/- has been fixed and in the advertisement also Rs. 140/- is fixed as reserve price in view of notification dated 04.02.2026 and same is in accordance with law. For kind consideration of the notification dated Hon'ble Court a true copy of 04.02.2026 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit."

¶12

We are not inclined to probe any further regarding fixation of reserved price, when there has been subsequent expectation of much higher price to be bid. This is because firstly, contention of State that few bidders

¶13

WRIC No. 11578 of 2026

¶14

¶15

turned up gives rise to presumption that the notice was not widely published/circulated. Secondly, it appears, upon hearing Mr. Goyal, in the subsequent auction process undertaken much higher bids were received. Mr. Soumyesh Dutt Tripathi, learned advocate appearing for petitioner submits, the persons who bid higher in the subsequent process were unsuccessful in the initial process. It follows, the subsequent process can also theoretically be found to be unsatisfactory, for calling another process where the same persons might improve their bids. In the circumstances, we would like to see the file and record of the opinion formed by the District Magistrate, its basis for cancelling the auction. Subsequent events cannot be relied upon as opinion formed for the cancellation.

¶16

State is to produce the file for our inspection. List on 19th May, 2026 as fresh.

¶17

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶18

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶19

May 12, 2026

¶20

Salim

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Shiv Giri Traders v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shiv Giri Traders v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jaynti Devi vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and 2 Others

Ghanshyam Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amrit Phosphate Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Shrinanak Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanhaiya Lal Chauhan and 153 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others