Disposed¶16

Smt. Sarita Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WRIC/12311/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim stay of fresh minor-mineral tender; cancellation of highest bid (Rs.361/cubic meter) against reserved price (Rs.140/- per cubic meter) under Rule 28(3), Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021; State directed to explain basis of opinion; parity sought with interim order dated 28.03.2026 in Writ-C No. 11747 of 2026 (M/s Shrinanak Minerals Pvt. Ltd.); Writ-C No. 12311 of 2026; Smt. Sarita Singh v. State of U.P.; listed 08.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the fresh tender process till the next date of hearing; State to be heard on the adjourned date; matter listed on 8th April, 2026 as fresh. ¶16

Smt. Sarita Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 12311 of 2026

Smt. Sarita Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sr. Advocate,	Vijay	Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶10

Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was declared highest bidder at Rs.361/per cubic meter on reserved price of Rs.140/- per cubic meter. The bid and the entire process was cancelled purportedly based on opinion formed pursuant to rule 28(3) of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. Tomorrow i.e 2nd April, 2026 is last date for putting in bids on the fresh tender. He relies on interim order dated 28th March, 2026 made in Writ-C no.11747 of 2026 (M/s Shrinanak Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) to submit, same interim direction be made.

¶11

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.

¶12

There are requisites for putting in bids. Petitioner has already complied with the requisitions in putting her in 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

¶13

WRIC No. 12311 of 2026

¶14

¶15

opinion.

¶16