Disposed¶17

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

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2026WRIC/11747/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bid rejection challenge; highest bidder; auction dated 13.03.2026; rule 28(3) Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021; District Magistrate power to reject all bids/offers as unsatisfactory; requirement of basis for opinion; State instructions dated 25.03.2026; affidavit on price obtained in last 12 months; status quo on auction material; interim order dated 28.03.2026; listing 09.04.2026; WRIT - C No. 11747 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: status quo in respect of the auction material to be maintained till the next date of hearing; State to file affidavit demonstrating material sold on price obtained in the last 12 months, acceptable on the adjourned date upon advance copy served; matter listed on 9th April, 2026 as fresh. Petition not finally decided. ¶17

M/S Shrinanak Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's highest bid in the auction held on 13th March, 2026 under rule 28(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 is sustainable, in the absence of any indicated basis for the State's opinion that the bids/offers were not satisfactory.

¶11

Court's answer

The power under rule 28(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 to reject all bids/offers on an opinion that they are not satisfactory can be duly exercised, but there must be a basis for the opinion.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

On the State's own showing, by reliance upon its instructions dated 25th March, 2026, there is no indication of what should be a satisfactory bid/offer; accordingly the State was directed to file an affidavit demonstrating material sold on price obtained in the last 12 months, to be accepted on the adjourned date upon advance copy served.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ.) — Interim order in writ petition challenging rejection of the petitioner's highest bid of Rs.333/- per cubic meter (security Rs.12.00 crores) in an auction held on 13th March, 2026 under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. The Court held that the power under rule 28(3) to reject all bids/offers on the opinion that they are not satisfactory can be duly exercised, but there must be a basis for the opinion; on the State's own showing (instructions dated 25th March, 2026) there was no indication of what should be a satisfactory bid/offer. The State was directed to file an affidavit demonstrating material sold on price obtained in the last 12 months, acceptable on the adjourned date upon advance copy served. Status quo in respect of the auction material to be maintained till the next date; matter listed on 9th April, 2026 as fresh.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11747 of 2026

¶3

M/S Shrinanak Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Amit Pathak	Upadhyay,	Anshul
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 29

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. Amit Upadhyay, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was highest bidder. The auction was held on 13th March, 2026. His client gave highest bid of Rs.333/- per cubic meter. This was after his client had put in security of Rs.12.00 crores. On 19th March, 2026 his client came to know that its bid had been rejected. Hence, challenge to the rejection.

¶12

Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He submits, rule 28 (3) in Utttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 enables the District Magistrate to reject all bids and offers if, there is opinion that the bids/offers is/are not satisfactory. He hands up his instruction dated 25th March, 2026 with copy to Mr. Upadhyay. On query he submits, the report relied upon does not indicate what should be the satisfactory bid/offer. It is to be ascertained on bids/offers received.

¶13

The power to reject on opinion formed can be duly exercised. That means, there must be a basis for the opinion. On own showing of State, by reliance upon the instructions, there is no indication of what should be a satisfactory bid/offer. State to file affidavit to demonstrate same material

¶14

WRIC No. 11747 of 2026

¶15

¶16

sold on price obtained in last 12 months. The affidavit will be accepted on adjourned date, upon advance copy served.

¶17