At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Decision to Annul Tender Process for Bauxite Mining Lease

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the State of Jharkhand to annul the tender process for the grant of a mining lease for bauxite mineral. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, delivered the verdict on November 20th, 2023, in the case titled “State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, (Mines & Geology) and Another vs. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. And Others”.

The apex court’s decision revolved around the proper interpretation and application of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017. The judgment emphasized the state’s responsibility in handling natural resources and the necessity to follow statutory procedures in tender processes.

The court observed, “Natural resources, including mines, minerals, etc., are considered national wealth for the common good and benefit of society through a systematic, scientific, and legal exploitation of the natural resources.”

The case arose from the annulment of a tender process initiated by the State of Jharkhand for a bauxite mining lease. The state had subsequently faced legal challenges on its decision to annul the tender process and initiate a fresh auction. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, delved deeply into the requirements of the Mineral (Auction) Rules and the principles governing judicial review in tender processes.

The judgment further noted, “The bottom line is public interest and maximization of value from exploitation of minerals and natural resources. Therefore, the Rules prescribe the mode and manner in which the bidding process for granting mining lease is taken up, continued, and concluded by the Appellants.”

The court underscored the principle that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides. It stressed that in matters of tenders or award of contracts, the courts should not interfere unless the process is mala fide or so arbitrary and irrational that it could be deemed unlawful.

Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, in the judgment, stated, “Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’ and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the Civil Appeal marks a significant precedent in the legal landscape surrounding tender processes and the exploitation of natural resources. This ruling is expected to guide future tendering processes, especially in the mining sector, ensuring that public interest and legal compliance remain at the forefront of administrative decision-making.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, (Mines & Geology) and Another vs Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd.

Latest Legal News