Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd vs Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad

2025 INSC 1276 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________/2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 20557/2021)

KIMBERLEY CLUB PVT. LTD. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.09.2021

whereby the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow

Bench refused to set aside the decision of 1st respondent-Krishi

Utpadan Mandi Parishad1 rejecting appellant’s technical bid on the

ground that the ‘haisiyat praman patra’ submitted by it had not been

issued by District Magistrate.

3. Dispute arose from a tender floated by 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad

to let out a banquet hall/terrace lawn for 10 years to the highest bidder. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT The notice inviting tender2 prescribed a two-stage bidding process Date: 2025.10.31 14:27:50 IST Reason:

1 Hereinafter referred to as “1st respondent-Mandi Parishad” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “NIT”

Page 1 of 7 comprising a technical bid and a financial bid. The technical bids were

to be evaluated first and only bidders meeting the eligibility criteria

would qualify for the second stage, where the financial bids were to be

evaluated and tender awarded to the highest bidder. One of the

conditions, namely Clause 18 in the NIT stated that bidder must submit

a ‘haisiyat praman patra’ of minimum ₹10 crores with the technical bid.

4. Appellant as well as 5th respondent (successful bidder) submitted their

respective bids. Appellant’s technical bid was disqualified for the reason

that the ‘haisiyat praman patra’ was issued by a private architect and

not a District Magistrate. Claiming itself to be the highest bidder and

that technical bid had been unlawfully rejected, appellant approached

High Court by way of a writ petition.

5. High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that valuation certificate

submitted by appellant having been issued by a private architect could

not be treated as a ‘haisiyat praman patra’, i.e., solvency certificate

which is always issued by the office of District Magistrate.

6. Appellant challenged the decision before this Court by way of Special

Leave Petition. This Court on 17.12.2021 while issuing notice, directed

as follows:-

“……………In case the successful tenderer has not started the execution of the tender, no further work be done in pursuance to the tender and in case it has so started, it would be subject to the final orders to be passed by this Court ”

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

8. The issue which falls for consideration is whether appellant, while

submitting a valuation certificate issued by a professional architect

Page 2 of 7 cum private valuer attached to the Income Tax Department, had

complied with Clause 18 of NIT which required it to submit a ‘haisiyat

praman patra’ of minimum ₹10 crores.

9. Appellant has strenuously argued that nothing in the NIT necessitated

that ‘haisiyat praman patra’ be issued by a District Magistrate. It

contended ‘haisiyat praman patra’ submitted by the appellant was by

an experienced valuer who was empanelled with the Income Tax

Department and there was no justification to reject such certificate. It

was also argued that the valuation certificate assessed the value of the

asset at around ₹99 crores, of which appellant was 76.09 %

shareholder, whereas as per clause 18 the bidder was to furnish a

‘haisiyat praman patra’ of minimum ₹10 crores only.

10. In rebuttal, the 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad referred to Uttar

Pradesh government notification dated 29.10.20183 laying down the

procedure for issuance of ‘haisiyat praman patra’ by District Magistrate.

It was contended that Clause 18 required submission of such ‘haisiyat

praman patra’ and not valuation certificate issued by a private valuer.

All bidders apart from appellant had submitted ‘haisiyat praman patra’

issued by District Magistrate. It was also contended that valuation

certificate does not disclose appellant’s net worth as it fails to indicate

whether the asset so valued was free from encumbrances.

11. In tender matters, the court exercising judicial review does not sit in

appeal over the decision of a tendering authority regarding

3 Notification No. C.M.-648/One-9-2018-7(M)/18, hereinafter referred to as “government notification”

Page 3 of 7 disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such decision is dehors the

terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary would the Court exercise powers

of judicial review and set aside such a decision.4

12. Having scanned the NIT, we are of the considered view that neither

Clause 18 nor any other condition specifies that the ‘haisiyat praman

patra’ submitted by a prospective bidder must be issued only by a

District Magistrate in terms of the government notification.

13. It is trite that the terms of an NIT must be clear and unambiguous.5 If

1st respondent-Mandi Parishad intended that ‘haisiyat praman patra’

must be issued by District Magistrate alone, it ought to have specified

so in the NIT conditions.

14. We are also unimpressed by 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad’s

submission that such condition was implied and followed by other

bidders, as nothing is placed on record to show that the government

notification was applicable to all tenders floated by 1st respondent-

Mandi Parishad. It may not be out of place to bear in mind that the 1st

respondent-Mandi Parishad is not a government department to which

the notification is per se applicable but is a body constituted under a

statute, namely Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.

15. Given the situation, it was incumbent on 1st respondent-Mandi

Parishad to indicate in the tender conditions that the ‘haisiyat praman

patra’ was to be obtained from a District Magistrate as per the

procedure laid down in such government notification. Having failed to

4 Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 [Para 94] 5 Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd.

& Anr., (2025) SCC Online SC 1942 [Para 19]

Page 4 of 7 do so, the 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad could not have rejected the

certificate submitted by appellant on the ground that it was not issued

by a District Magistrate. That apart, appellant’s certificate has been

issued by an experienced valuer registered with the Income Tax

Department who is otherwise competent to issue such certificate.

16. A new objection has been raised in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit

filed by 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad to justify the rejection of the

certificate submitted by the appellant. It is averred since the certificate

does not disclose encumbrances, if any, on the asset, it cannot be

termed as a ‘haisiyat praman patra’ indicating net worth of the bidder.

This objection has been taken for the first time in the judicial

proceeding and was not a ground for rejection of the technical bid as

would be evident from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit which

unequivocally states as follows:-

“The Petitioner’s tender had been rejected on the ground that they had not submitted required certificate issued by a District Magistrate”

17. As per Oxford Hindi – English dictionary, the English translation of the

word ‘haisiyat’ is “capacity, ability, means or resources”.6 No doubt from

such perspective, the ‘haisiyat praman patra’ would be understood as

net worth of the bidder. However, the valuation certificate had not been

turned down by 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad on such score. It was

rejected on the ground that it had not been issued by a District

Magistrate as per the government notification whose applicability to the

6 Oxford Hindi – English Dictionary, 38th impression – June 2010, Oxford University Press

Page 5 of 7 subject tender had not been spelt out in the NIT. Given these

circumstances, we are loathe to permit the 1st respondent-Mandi

Parishad to justify the rejection of appellant’s technical bid on such

additional ground belatedly taken in the counter affidavit. There is no

cavil that an order of rejection must be sustained on grounds stated

therein and additional grounds cannot be subsequently pressed into

service to justify such rejection.7 On the other hand, the valuation

certificate shows the worth of the appellant’s share in the asset far

exceeds ₹10 crores as required under Clause 18 of the NIT. In such a

situation, if the 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad doubted that the asset

was encumbered it ought to have sought clarification from the appellant

on such score before rejecting the bid.

18. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that rejection of

appellant’s technical bid on ground that appellant’s certificate was not

issued by District Magistrate is dehors the terms of the NIT and is liable

to be quashed.

19. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded

to 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad to reconsider the technical bid of the

appellant and if it is satisfied that the net worth of the asset (free of

encumbrances, if any) disclosed in the valuation certificate submitted

by appellant meets the requirement of Clause 18 of the NIT, it shall

accept the technical bid and after due negotiations between appellant

and the 5th respondent (successful bidder), decide whether remainder

7 Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978)

1 SCC 405 [Para 8]

Page 6 of 7 of contract be awarded to the appellant or in the event 5th respondent

matches the financial bid or enhanced offer of the appellant, permit the

5th respondent to continue the contract for the remaining period.

20. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

…………………………………………., J (SURYA KANT)

…………………………………………, J (JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI,

OCTOBER 31, 2025.

Page 7 of 7