AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,,
The writ petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the E-Auction held on 26.09.2017 in respect of auctioning of Block 3D1 in Tehsil Nagaur for,,,,,
grant of mining lease as well as declaration dated 29.09.2017 recommending respondent No.7 as the preferred bidder, with a further prayer to conduct",,,,,
fresh E-Auction.,,,,,
The respondent No.2 Director, Mines and Geology issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the grant of mining lease under the provisions of Section",,,,,
10B/11 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 and in accordance with Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 whereby",,,,,
the mineral blocks for the purpose of grant of mining lease for mineral lime stone through E- auction were notified for inviting bids in digital format,,,,,
only from eligible bidders. In pursuant to the issuance of the NIT, the petitioner company got itself registered on the website of respondent MSTC and",,,,,
obtained its login ID and password. The mining department of State of Rajasthan issued a tender document to all prospective bidders setting out terms,,,,,
and conditions to carry out E-auction for grant of a mining lease for mineral specified therein.,,,,,
The respondent No.4 and 5 being Mineral State Trading Corporation Ltd. (Commonly known as MSTC) is a mini ratna category -1 PSU under the,,,,,
administrative control of the ministry of Steel, Government of India. The said company acts as a regulating authority for export of ferrous scrap. The",,,,,
State Government had authorised the respondent MSTC for conducting electronic auction through its platform as per Rule 7 of the Mineral (Auction),,,,,
Rules, 2015.",,,,,
The grievance of the petitioner-company is twofold:,,,,,
(a) For no fault of the petitioner company and solely on account of the failure of the loop connectivity, the petitioner company was wrongfully deprived",,,,,
from placing a higher bid in comparison to the bid placed by the respondent No.7. For meeting exigencies, a contact person was nominated in the",,,,,
website of the MSTC. The petitioner contacted the concerned person i.e. respondent No.8 before the expiry of 8 minutes, but he miserably failed to",,,,,
take remedial measures and further did not halt the bid process until loop was reconnected.,,,,,
(b) The E-auction process and subsequent declaration of respondent No.7 as ‘preferred H1 bidder’ has caused irreparable loss and injury not,,,,,
only to the petitioner, but also to the respondent No.1 Government of Rajasthan, in as much as, there is huge loss of almost Rs.2000 crores in revenue",,,,,
by way of price premium as the petitioner on date is ready to start the bid from 50 onwards which has presently been accepted at 41.60.,,,,,
As per the facts of the case, after completing all the necessary formalities of submitting bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.9,08,93,886/- in accordance",,,,,
with the requirement of tender document the petitioner company submitted its technical bid. On 22.09.2017, the petitioner JSW Cement Limited,",,,,,
Mumbai along with respondent No.7 M/s. Ambuja Cement Limited, Gujarat and Adani Cementations Limited, Gujarat were declared as technically",,,,,
qualified. On 26.09.2017, the conduct of ascending forward electronic auction and submission of Final Price Offer on electronic auction platform was",,,,,
fixed as per the amended time table. Thereafter, the petitioner company logged into the server of MSTC and started registering its bid.",,,,,
For understanding the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the conduct of E-auction which reads as under:-",,,,,
“b. Conduct of e-auction:,,,,,
E-auction is the process of inviting binding Final Price Offer(s) from Qualified Bidders through internet for the purpose of determination of the,,,,,
Preferred Bidder. During this process, the Qualified Bidder will be able to submit its Final Price Offer as many times as it wishes against the same",,,,,
mineral block. The Qualified Bidder will remain anonymous to other Qualified Bidders participating in the electronic auction process as well as to,,,,,
MSTC/State Government. The Qualified Bidder will be able to see the prevailing highest Final Price Offer against the mineral block, but the name of",,,,,
the highest Qualified Bidder at any point of time will not be displayed. The Qualified Bidder shall have to put its Final Price Offer over and above the,,,,,
displayed highest bid by a minimum increment of [0.05%] to become the highest Qualified Bidder. The electronic auction process will have a,,,,,
scheduled start and close time which will be displayed on screen. A qualified bidder will be able to put its Final Price Offer after the start of bid time,,,,,
and till the close time of electronic auction. The current server time (IST) will also be displayed on the screen. In the event a Final Price Offer is,,,,,
received during the last 8 (Eight) minutes before the scheduled close time of electronic auction, the close time of electronic auction will be",,,,,
automatically extended by 8(eight) minutes from the last received bid time to give equal opportunity to all other qualified bidders. This process of auto,,,,,
extension will continue till no Final Price Offer is received during a period of 8 (Eight) minutes.â€,,,,,
In the present case, the bid for determining the highest bid was to start at 11.00 am uptill 2.00 pm. Thereafter, as per the tender terms of the tender",,,,,
document, the block of 8 minutes become operative after 2.00 pm and if there is no higher bidder within those 8 minutes, then the last bid would",,,,,
become the highest bid. In case, a person made a higher bid within those 8 minutes, time got extended by another 8 minutes from that point when the",,,,,
next bid was offered within 8 minutes.,,,,,
As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner quoted the figures from time to time so as to ensure at any given interval",,,,,
of time, its bid is the highest. The bid continued throughout the day without any break. When the petitioner tried to give a higher quote at around 6.33",,,,,
pm, the connectivity to website ceased. The representatives of the petitioner company entered the figure of 41.65 in designated window and tried to",,,,,
click the Bid Button, it turned non-responsive to the input. Thereafter the petitioner tried to refresh log out and log in again but the login to MSTC",,,,,
website did not happen. Despite repeated attempts, the petitioner did not succeed as the website itself become non responsive. The representatives of",,,,,
the petitioner company panicked and immediately called respondent No.8 Sr. Manager, MSTC. Thereafter, the petitioner also sent a formal complaint",,,,,
on the same day at 8.50 pm to respondent mining department along with the copy to respondent No.8 and other concerned persons of the respondent,,,,,
MSTC. The petitioner company lodged another complaint vide E-mail dated 27.09.2017 reiterating the facts but the respondent No.3 proceeded to,,,,,
recommend respondent No.7 as the preferred bidder vide declaration dated 29.09.2017.,,,,,
This Court may note that at the time of issuance of notice of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner company made a statement at the",,,,,
bar before this Court that the petitioner company is ready to offer the bid from 50.00 onwards.,,,,,
All the respondents have filed their respective replies.,,,,,
As per the reply filed by the respondent-State, the complaint made by the petitioner company was gone into and it came to be established that there",,,,,
was no system failure during the aforesaid hours. In pursuance to the complaint of the petitioner-company, the respondent No.1 Joint Secretary,",,,,,
Department of Mines wrote a letter on 27.09.2017 to the E-Auction Service Provider Company -MSTC and sought their explanation. In turn, the",,,,,
service provider company replied that the system of the service provider company was absolutely in working order and there was no technical fault,,,,,
nor was there any interruption caused by any fault and there was no problem at the end of the server because as many as 473 offers of 19 auctions,,,,,
were accepted by the system during the said period. Therefore, the respondent No.7 was rightly declared as a highest bidder.",,,,,
A joint reply has also been filed by respondents No.4,5 and 8 being MSTC and Shri Dinesh Meel Sr. Manager who was impleaded as respondent",,,,,
No.8 by name. While denying the allegation of the petitioner company, it was submitted that no complaint was lodged by the petitioner till the expiry of",,,,,
the scheduled period of bid. Further, there was no plausible reason for halting the auction proceedings. It was denied that the answering respondent",,,,,
was duty bound to have halted and put on hold the on-going e-auction process in the facts and circumstances as pleaded by aruging that the entire e-,,,,,
auction is conducted by the them through its server situated at Kolkata. It is IBM Power Series 740 server and there is another backup server for,,,,,
disaster recovery at Bombay which is in the nature of rescue and recovery server and copies all activities. The technical capabilities and efficiency of,,,,,
the server is at par excellence, time tested and beyond any doubt. The server is high power series server capable of handling huge concurrent loads",,,,,
both at the data centre at Kolkata and disaster recovery server at Bombay. The capability of the server can be appreciated by the mere fact that it,,,,,
handles and records more than 10000 concurrent hits within nano seconds. Thus, the functioning efficiently of the server of the answering respondent",,,,,
is beyond any pale of doubt.,,,,,
The respondent No.8 Shri Dinesh Meel also appeared in person and filed his additional affidavit. He tried to explain that during the bid process, the",,,,,
petitioner had logged in at wrong link of General E-Auction given at the website of the answering respondent while the petitioner was required to log,,,,,
in at the link of MLCL Login for submitting right bid. The respondent No.8 referred to the details of the login by petitioners during the said duration to,,,,,
contend that there was no fault at the server side.,,,,,
Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.7. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.D. Thanvi appearing on behalf",,,,,
of respondent No.7 while vehemently opposing the prayer of the petitioner raised the following arguments:,,,,,
(a) Scope of judicial review vis.a.vis disputed questions of fact involved is settled and no longer res-integra. The allegation in respect of system error,,,,,
at the end of the service provider itself calls for an enquiry which requires leading of cogent evidence and therefore, the same cannot be a subject",,,,,
matter of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.,,,,,
Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of M/s. K.R. Berwal & Sons. Vs. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation,,,,,
Limited (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9293/2017) decided on 24.11.2017, Suman Choudhary Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition",,,,,
No.12556/2017) decided on 3.11.2017 as well as M/s. GIS Consortium India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition,,,,,
No.3405/2016) decided on 20.05.2016 to contend that non-submission of online bid by the petitioners cannot be attributed to the respondents and,,,,,
therefore, any interference would be highly unjustified.",,,,,
(b) As per Rule 9(4)((b)(iii) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015.- “the qualified bidder who submits the highest final price offer shall be declared",,,,,
as the “preferred bidder†immediately on conclusion of the auction.†The respondent No.7 having been declared as the preferred bidder, it was",,,,,
no more open for challenge and nor was it liable to be cancelled.,,,,,
Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Shankar Company Vs. State of Rajasthan,,,,,
& Ors. (D.B. civil Special Appeal (writ) No.118/2013) decided on 22.4.2013 vide which the appeal against the order of learned Single Bench was,,,,,
allowed on the ground that learned Single Bench could not allow the impleadment of a party simply on noticing its willingness to offer a higher bid.,,,,,
(c) In pursuance to the Mineral (Auction) Rules, the tender process was required to be conducted through E-Auction as stipulated in the NIT. It is",,,,,
evident from the condition b of the NIT that “The Qualified Bidder will remain anonymous to other Qualified Bidders participating in the electronic,,,,,
auction process as well as to MSTC/State Government. The Qualified Bidder will be able to see the prevailing highest Final Price Offer against the,,,,,
mineral block, but the name of the highest Qualified Bidder at any point of time will not be displayed.†Thus, there was no scope of malafide.",,,,,
(d) As per the same conduct of E-Auction, the bidder is required to possess a valid Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of signing type to be able to",,,,,
submit its Bid and to participate in the electronic auction of MSTC website. A bidder is required to authorise its contact person to procure a class III,,,,,
DSC. The petitioner company was obviously not logging in by correct name and it was in those circumstances that the same went to General E-,,,,,
Auction instead of correct MLCL login. The document Annexure- R/4 placed on record by the State Government shows that the petitioner company,,,,,
was not logging under the valid signature, therefore same was sent to scrap. There is no averment that they were bidding with the digital signature",,,,,
which reveals that there was serious fault in the system of the petitioner itself in the entire process of bidding. Respondent No.7 remained logged in,,,,,
using the MLCL log in and logged in a total of 6 times during the entire bidding process. The petitioner logged in a total of 29 times during the whole,,,,,
bidding process sometimes using the MLCL login and sometimes using the General auction login. From the logged in details provided in reply to the,,,,,
private respondent RTI Application, it becomes clear that once the petitioner logged in using the MLCL login, the log in was successful, however",,,,,
when the petitioner logged in using the General Auction Login, the same would fail. Thus, the failure of the petitioner to log properly was the fault of",,,,,
the petitioner company and not at the end of the service provider.,,,,,
(e) From the logging details, it become clear that there was no problem/glitch at the end of the server of MSTC in as much as, the e-auction continued",,,,,
not only for the site in question but other auctions were also going on the same server. They were going on even beyond 18:40 hours and successfully,,,,,
concluded. The private respondent placed its bid of 41.60 at 18.31 hrs after which no further bid was recorded in the server. The certificate dated,,,,,
29.09.2017 issued by MSTC further supports their stand vide which it is certified that at the time the auctioning/bidding process was being conducted,",,,,,
the system operating at the end of MSTC was in “perfect working condition, free from any snag, glitches, hold-up or the likes.â€. The averments",,,,,
made by the petitioner that the designated representative of MSTC was contacted by it is absolutely unfounded and baseless in as much as, when the",,,,,
server was working proper and other bidding processes were also going on, there was no question of any fault at the end of MSTC.",,,,,
(f) There is no allegation of malafide in the writ petition. The petitioner tried to improve and make the allegation of malafide by filing rejoinder and,,,,,
taking a totally different plea. Neither the communication dated 26.09.2017 and nor the letter dated 27.09.2017 states that the fault was at the end of,,,,,
MSTC. This has been only alleged in the rejoinder as an afterthought.,,,,,
(g) There is no provision for negotiation. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are ready to offer a bid from 50",,,,,
onwards cannot be accepted. It is a statutory auction. There is no violation of any rule. Hence, the very offer at this stage cannot be accepted, more",,,,,
so, when there was no such offer made by the petitioner either in their letter or in the writ petition. No grievance was raised by the petitioner for",,,,,
almost 02 hours of the acceptance of the bid offered by the respondent No.7 which further shows that the stand of the petitioner is an afterthought.,,,,,
The bidding process has to attain finality at some stage and entertaining of the present writ petition will encourage future unsuccessful bidders to,,,,,
challenge the same on such flimsy and baseless grounds.,,,,,
Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.,,,,,
The first question before this Court in the circumstances is the scope of judicial review in such matters.,,,,,
I may refer to some of the judicial pronouncements on the subject as cited before this Court.,,,,,
In M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. :: (1980)4 SCC1, the validity of order was assailed on behalf of",,,,,
the petitioner in the said case on the ground of public interest besides other grounds. In the said case, huge benefit had been conferred on the",,,,,
respondents at the cost of the State. The action of the Government in the said case was held as unreasonable and lacking in public interest as the,,,,,
Government gave out the contract for a consideration less than the highest that could have been obtained for it. The petitioners in the said case were,,,,,
aggrieved by the handing over the contract to an outside party that offered to take all the untapped forests in the State by offering more price than,,,,,
offered by others. The State did not accept this offer made by the petitioners and decided to go ahead with giving tapping contract in respect of these,,,,,
blazes to the respondents therein. The Apex Court in this case upheld the stand of the State on the conclusion that the contract to the respondent was,,,,,
in public interest as the respondent had agreed to provide resources and other facilities for the purpose of setting up an industry which would have long,,,,,
way in the State like Jammu and Kashmir.,,,,,
In the case of Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. Vs. G.S. Investment & Ors. :: (2007) 1 SCC 477, the State Government had disapproved the auction",,,,,
and ordered fresh auction as there was sufficient material before the State Government to show that the past plots in the area past plots in the area,,,,,
had fetched a price of Rs.10,000/- per square meter whereas the respondents had offered only Rs.5750/- per square meter. The Apex Court while",,,,,
upholding the action of the State in public interest observed in para 11 as under:-,,,,,
The sale of plots by the Rajasthan Housing Board by means of an auction is essentially a commercial transaction. Even if some defect was found in,,,,,
the ultimate decision resulting in cancellation of the auction, the court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution with",,,,,
great care and caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in,,,,,
order to decide whether it should interfere with the decision of the authority. In the present case there was enough material before the State,,,,,
Government to show that in the past plots in the area had fetched a price of Rs.10,000/- per square meter and the highest bid made by the respondent",,,,,
in the present case was nearly half, i.e., Rs.5750/- per square meter, which clearly indicated that the auction had not been conducted in a fair manner.",,,,,
If in such a case the State Government took a decision to disapprove the auction held and issued a direction for holding of a fresh auction, obviously",,,,,
the said decision was taken in larger public interest. In these circumstances there was absolutely no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ,,,,,
petition and issue any direction in favour of the contesting respondent. The orders passed by the learned single Judge on 4.8.2004 and the order passed,,,,,
by the Division Bench of the High Court on 23.9.2004 are clearly erroneous in law and are liable to be set aside.""",,,,,
In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India :: (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Court observed that the State has the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender as",,,,,
long as it applies the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution. There was no question of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution if the,,,,,
Government tries to accept and offering the best person or the best quotation. Para 70 and 71 of the said judgment clarifies that principles of judicial,,,,,
review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism. Para 70 and 71 reads,,,,,
thus :,,,,,
It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to,,,,,
prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review.",,,,,
Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or,,,,,
any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while",,,,,
accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best,,,,,
quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the",,,,,
exercise of that power will be struck down.,,,,,
Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether,,,,,
contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justifiable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an,,,,,
unfairness is set right by judicial review.""",,,,,
The Apex Court in case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies and Anr. :: (2009) 6 SCC 171, allowed the appeal",,,,,
of the Meerut Development Authority upholding the decision to reject the tender of the respondent on the ground that offer made was lower than the,,,,,
reserved price and allowed it to re-auction with following observations:-,,,,,
The letter dated 4.3.2002 from AMS to MDA indicating the acceptance of Rs. 690/- per sq. meter only after one Harpal Singh Chowdhary on,,,,,
behalf of the Officer's Class Housing Society had mentioned a higher price of Rs. 775/- per sq. meter in his representation. There is nothing on record,,,,,
to suggest that impugned decision has been taken only for making higher financial gain and profit. But what is wrong even if any such effort was,,,,,
made by MDA to augment its financial resources.,,,,,
We are, however, of the opinion that the effort, if any, made by MDA to augment its financial resources and revenue itself cannot be said to be",,,,,
unreasonable decision. It is well said that the struggle to get for the State the full value of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of State,,,,,
owned natural assets to the private sector. Whenever the Government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being",,,,,
cheated; there is a simple transfer of wealth from the citizens as a whole to whoever gets the assets `at a discount'. Most of the times the wealth of a,,,,,
State goes to the individuals within the country rather than to multi- national corporations; still, wealth slips away that ought to belong to the nation as a",,,,,
whole.,,,,,
Society's repeated representations are of no consequence and the MDA was not under any legal obligation to reopen the tender process which,,,,,
otherwise stood terminated. The MDA, in its meeting dated 15.3.2002 considered the request of the Society as well as the alternative offer but neither",,,,,
of them was accepted. MDA after careful deliberation decided to dispose of the land through fresh tender-cum-auction for residential use after giving,,,,,
wide publicity.,,,,,
Mr. M.S. Singhvi learned Senior Counsel while contending that the Court has no expertise to go into the procedure of e- auction and the technical,,,,,
glitch which requires enquiry and investigation placed reliance of the judgment in the case of Bharat Earth Movers & Transporters Vs. Eastern,,,,,
Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. :: (2017)1 WBLR(Cal)22 decided by the learned Single Bench of Calcutta High Court wherein it was held that e-auction is to,,,,,
be held strictly in terms of the notice inviting tender and the plea to hold re-tender on such issue is wholly misconceived and untenable.,,,,,
Reliance was also placed in the judgment rendered in the case of Glodyne Technoserve Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others :: (2011) 5,,,,,
SCC 103. In the said case, the second lowest bidder was awarded the contract. The same was upheld. The said case does not help in the facts of the",,,,,
present case as the appellant - higher bidder in the said case did not have the valid and active ISO certificate and was accordingly held ineligible.,,,,,
Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. :: (1999) 1 SCC",,,,,
S. No.,IP,"Successful Login
Time",Remarks,Comments,
1,"10.4.20.227#fe80::c534:c921:f6ef :ff72#fkip-
>203.187.225.36","2017-09-26
09:50:15.244322",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
2,"10.4.20.227#fe80::c534:c921:f6ef :ff72#fkip-
>203.187.225.36","2017-09-26
10:21:25.725669",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
3,"10.4.20.227#fe80::c534:c921:f6ef :ff72#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
10:33:12.984398",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
4,"10.4.20.227#fe80::c534:c921:f6ef :ff72#fkip-
>203.187.225.36","2017-09-26
10:39:41.208041",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
5,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>203.187.225.22","2017-09-26
10:51:35.416548","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
6,"10.4.22.28#fe80::c528:dacd:257: 543f#fkip -
>203.187.225.36","017-09-26
10:53:23.926184",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
7,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374
0:252a#fkipâ€">123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
11:29:43.235984","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
8,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374
0:252a#fkipâ€">123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
11:30:36.709718","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
9,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>203.187.225.22","2017-09-26
11:31:31.118372","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
10,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>203.187.225.22","2017-09-26
11:45:14.748614","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
11,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
12:32:53.071634","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
12,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
14:01:19.389199","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
13,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:33:31.268783",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
14,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:33:56.566514",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
15,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:34:50.007498",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
16,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>203.187.225.22","2017-09-26
18:35:04.521145",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
17,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:35:47.399387",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
18,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:36:23.840637",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
19,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:36:54.840351",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
20,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:37:25.828433",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
21,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
18:38:02.679886",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
22,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","=A1:C30+A1:3
0=B102017-09- 26
18:38:34.5836 17",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
23,"10.4.22.28#fe80::c528:dacd:257: 543f#fkip -
>203.187.225.36","2017-09-26
18:38:58.37755",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
24,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>203.187.225.22","2017-09-26
18:39:05.833792","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
25,"10.4.22.28#fe80::c528:dacd:257: 543f#fkip -
>203.187.225.36","2017-09-26
18:46:58.081718","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
26,"0.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>203.187.225.22","2017-09-26
19:36:37.375686",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
27,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
19:42:33.224149",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
28,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
19:42:46.269502",SCRAP,"General Auction
Login",
29,"10.4.21.172#fe80::bc73:8135:374 0:252a#fkip-
>123.63.47.57","2017-09-26
19:44:15.504844","CN NAME: NARINDER
SINGH KAHLON Cert
Serial:1f253a420200afea",MLCL Login,
S.No.,Particulars,3B1(b),3B1(a),"3D1 (present
case)",3B2
1,Participants,"1.Emami Cement
Ltd. 2. JSW
Cement Ltd. 3.
Manglam Cement
Ltd.","1. Emami Cement
Ltd. 2. JSW
Cement Ltd. 3.
Star Cement Ltd.","1. Ambuja
Cement Ltd. 2.
JSW Cement Ltd.
Adani
Cementation s
Ltd.","1. JSW Cement
Ltd. 2. ACC
Cement Ltd. 3.
JK Laxmi
Cement Ltd.
2,Date of auction,22.09.2016,06.01.2017,26.09.2017,05.02.2018
3,Area (ha),247.87,267.62,357,470.00
4,Resource (Million Tonnes),168.84,126.95,199.154,205.53
6,"Average of highest bid (3
blocks)(A) Difference in
bids(A-B)",62.71 21.11,,,
7,Loss to Govt. Exchequer,"Rs.456.4/- per ton of Limestone as per value of resource mentioned by tender
document approximately INR 1918.7Cr.",,,