Mineral (Auction) Rules 2015 - State Entitled To Annul Tender Notification When Number Of Technically Qualified Bidders Is Less Than 3 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently validated the authority of the state to annul a tender process, with a specific focus on adherence to Rule 9 under the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015.Referring to Rule 9(10) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, the Court said that where the total number of technically qualified bidders is less than three, then no technically qualified bidder shall be considered to be qualified bidder and the first attempt of auction shall be annulled.As per Rule 9(9), the auction process shall proceed to the second round of auction only when there are three or more technically qualified bidders.The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand against the division bench of the Jharkhand High Court judgment which allowed the petition directing the appellants to proceed with the second round of the auction.The dispute stemmed from a tender notice issued on 25.10.2019, inviting bids for the allocation and grant of a mining lease for bauxite mineral in Lodhapat, Jobhipat, and Hethilodha blocks.The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) found that Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Private Limited(Respondent) submitted the technical bid physically at the department's office, not electronically on the MSTC website, as required by the tender document. Based on this, the TEC recommended the annulment of the auction.Subsequently, the Appellants issued a notification on 28.01.2020, for a second attempt at the auction. Only one expression of interest, from the Respondent, was received.The Appellants decided to annul both the tenders initiated on 25.10.2019 and 28.01.2020. In response, Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a court order directing the Appellants to proceed with the second round of the auction. On 22.04.2022, the Writ Petition was dismissed, holding that even if the Respondent's technical bid was compliant, it couldn't progress to the next stage. Subsequently, the Respondent approached the Division Bench which allowed the L.P.A holding that the Appellants are bound by the statutory obligation under the second proviso to Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 9 of Mineral (Auction) RulesAggrieved by this, the State and the Director of Mines and Geology moved an appeal before the Supreme Court.Annulment of a tender notification arises when the required number of technically qualified bidders is less than threeThe Court examined the legality and validity of the respondent's claim to have its technical bid considered in the second round of a mineral auction. The case centered around the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, as amended by the Mineral (Auction) Amendment Rules, 2017.The Supreme Court acknowledged the State Government's presumed awareness of the commercial value of natural resources put up for tender, as well as the mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and objectivity in the bidding process. It stressed the need for statutory rules to guide the bid cum e-auction process, which includes shortlisting technically qualified bidders and scrutinizing bids that meet eligibility criteria. The court cautioned against the judiciary substituting executive discretion by issuing directions in the writ jurisdiction.The Court observed “The annulment of a tender notification arises when the required number of technically qualified bidders is less than three. In other words, there could be less than three bidders, but it does not include a case where there is none, as in the present case. The Appellants are confronted by a very peculiar situation viz., no responsive bid in the first attempt and in the second attempt one bid/response is available and without a floor rate or reserved price or auction the rights in mineral extraction to third parties. It is a case of no bid. No value can be ascribed so as to constitute a reserve price.”Insisting upon strict adherence to statutory rules, the court held that the state and the Dept of Mines(Appellants) were right in annulling the tender process. It opined “The Appellants are governed by the MMDR Act and M(A) Rules, for identifying, auctioning the blocks, and granting mining lease rights to successful participants. The first and foremost obligation on the Appellants is to act in trust and advance the public interest while granting mining leases.”Rule 9(10) attracted when there are less than 3 technically qualified bidders in a responsive tenderThe Court referred to Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 9 to emphasize that for the auction to proceed to the next stage, there must be a minimum of three qualified bidders. If there are less than 3 qualified bidders, then Sub-Rule (10) stipulates that no bidder shall be considered qualified, resulting in the annulment of the first attempt of the auction.The Court noted that as per the scheme of the rules, the appellants can either annul the first round and proceed with a de novo auction, with changed or...

Mineral (Auction) Rules 2015 - State Entitled To Annul Tender Notification When Number Of Technically Qualified Bidders Is Less Than 3 : Supreme Court

Suraj Parmar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mineral (Auction) Rules 2015 - State Entitled To Annul Tender Notification When Number Of Technically Qualified Bidders Is Less Than 3 : Supreme Court

Suraj Parmar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers