Tender conditions must be read to protect competition and public revenue; misconstruction can justify judicial review and fresh auction.

Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 was construed to require the income tax return for the immediately preceding completed financial year, not a year whose return-filing period had not yet expired, so the bidder's filing for 2020-2021 satisfied the condition and rejection for non-filing of 2021-2022 was unsustainable. In judicial review of the sand tender, the Court held that a misconstruction of tender conditions that excluded the highest bidder and reduced public revenue justified intervention; the impugned judgment and rejection were set aside, a fresh auction was ordered, and restitutionary relief with refund was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "previous Financial Year" in Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 required production of the income tax return for the immediately preceding completed financial year or the financial year whose return-filing period had not yet expired; (ii) whether the rejection of the highest bid and the relief granted by the High Court in favour of the successful bidder could be sustained in judicial review of a public tender for extraction of sand.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "previous Financial Year" in Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 required production of the income tax return for the immediately preceding completed financial year or the financial year whose return-filing period had not yet expired.

Analysis: Rule 27(4)(iv) required an income tax return of the "previous Financial Year" or an equivalent bank guarantee. The auction notice was issued and bids were called in July 2022, while the statutory time for filing the income tax return for financial year 2021-2022 had not yet expired. Reading the Rule harmoniously with Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the phrase "previous Financial Year" could not mean a year for which the return was not yet due. It had to mean the immediately preceding completed financial year, namely 2020-2021, for which the bidder had filed its return.

Conclusion: The bidder had complied with Rule 27(4)(iv), and the rejection of its bid on the ground of non-filing of the return for financial year 2021-2022 was and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the highest bid and the relief granted by the High Court in favour of the successful bidder could be sustained in judicial review of a public tender for extraction of sand.

Analysis: In contractual and tender matters, interference is limited, but the Court will intervene where the decision-making process is vitiated by a misconstruction of tender conditions, arbitrariness, or a result contrary to public interest. The Tender Committee adopted a narrow construction that excluded the highest bidder and diminished public revenue in a tender concerning natural resources. The High Court also erred in sustaining that rejection while issuing directions that were inconsistent with the correct interpretation of the tender condition. As the impugned judgment could not stand, relief had to be moulded by setting aside the auction process and directing a fresh auction with restitution to the successful bidder for the amount deposited.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable, the directions requiring the successful bidder to match the higher bid were not maintained, and a fresh auction with refund and interest to the successful bidder was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, the tender process was reopened through a fresh auction, and restitutionary relief was directed in favour of the successful bidder.

Ratio Decidendi: A tender condition requiring an income tax return of the "previous Financial Year" must be construed to mean the last completed financial year whose return was due, and a misconstruction that excludes the highest bidder and reduces public revenue is liable to correction in judicial review.

---