[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saad Transport vs The Managing Director on 20 January, 2026
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 45727 of 2025
M/S KUSH TRANSPORT COMPANY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Rusia - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey and Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai - Advocates for respondent
no.2/M.P. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.
Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tulika Gulatee - Advocate for
respondent no.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 47104 of 2025
SAAD TRANSPORT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devdatt Bhave - Advocate for petitioners.
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey and Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai - Advocates for respondents.
WRIT PETITION No. 50491 of 2025
MOHD ZAKARIYA TRANSPORT
Versus
THE MANAGIN DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devdatt Bhave - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey and Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai - Advocates for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.45727/2025 is aggrieved by communication dated
13.11.2025, whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner had been rejected.
Petitioners in W.P.No.47104/2025 are aggrieved by decision dated 31.10.2025,
whereby the bid of the petitioner has been rejected and petitioner in
W.P.No.50491/2025 is also aggrieved by communication dated 31.10.2025,
whereby the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. All the bids have been
rejected on the ground that the declaration affidavit has been submitted on a
stamp paper of Rs.100/- instead of a stamp paper of Rs.200/-.
2. Since all the cases pertain to the same tender, same tender condition and
same ground for rejection, we have taken the matters for an analogous hearing
and are disposing off the same by a common judgment.
3. Respondent- M.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited had invited bids
for procurement, transportation and unloading of Rabi and Kharif stock in some
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh. All the petitioners submitted their bids.
It is an admitted position that the petitioners submitted the respective bids and
along with the bid document submitted the declaration affidavits on a stamp
paper of Rs.100/-.
4. Notice inviting tender was issued on 03.09.2025. Notice inviting tender in
clause 5.6, as it was originally circulated, required the bidders to upload a
declaration affidavit on a 100 rupees stamp paper duly notarized. Subsequently,
the State issued a notification amending the stamp act, whereby the stamp paper
to be affixed on an affidavit was enhanced to Rupees 200 from, rupees 50. The
declaration was issued on 11.09.2025. Respondent- M.P. State Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited issued notice on 12.09.2025 inter alia to the effect that the
declaration affidavit had to be submitted on a stamp paper of Rs.200/- instead of
Rs.100/-. The last date for submission of the bids was 24.09.2025. Petitioners
herein submitted their respective bids before the end of bid submission date.
However, the declaration affidavit was transcribed on a Rs.100 stamp paper.
5. On the dates as noticed above, the bids of the petitioners have been
technically disqualified on the ground that they had submitted the bids and the
declaration affidavit was insufficiently stamped.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioner contend that the original tender
document had stipulated that the declaration affidavit should be on a 100 Rs.
stamp paper and the subsequent amendment went unnoticed and as such an
error was committed. Learned counsels submit that the requirement of filing the
declaration affidavit on a 200 Rs. stamp paper is a non-essential condition and is
only ancillary to the performance of the contract. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
Engineering Works and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 273 to contend that deviation
from non-essential or ancillary/subsidiary conditions is not fatal to the bid.
Learned counsels further contend that perusal of the tender document also
shows that the tender document at other places also require the declaration
affidavit to be on Rs.100/- stamp paper, which condition has not been amended.
They submit that the bid submitted by the petitioner, is strictly in accordance
with the tender document and cannot be held to be non compliant.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Madhya Pradesh State Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited and counsel appearing for respondent no.3 in
W.P.No.45727/2025, the person to whom the contract is sought to be awarded
in this petition, contend that the requirement of submitting a declaration
affidavit on 200 rupees stamp paper was an essential condition and since
petitioner had committed a breach of the same, the bid has rightly been declared
to be non-compliant. Furthermore, it is contended that the bid document
specifically stipulates that no fresh document or new document can be accepted
after the last date for the submission of the bid. Mr.Gulatee, learned senior
counsel appearing for private respondent in W.P.No.45727/2025, submits that
even if petitioner wanted to cure the defect, said defect cannot be permitted to
be cured at this stage, as there is a specific stipulation in the bid document that
no fresh or new document can be accepted.
8. Reference may be had to the subject tender document/NIT. Clause 5.6 of
the NIT, reads as under:-
5.6 मुझे अथवा मेरे किसी भागीदार अथवा कन्सोर्टियम सदस्य को निविदा भरने की दिनांक में
ब्लैकलिस्टेड नहीं किया गया है। निविदाकार या उसके किसी भी पार्टनर / पार्टनर्स या सदस्य का नाम
शासन/शासकीय संस्था/अर्द्धशासकीय संस्था से परिवहन कार्य हेतु निविदा दिनांक को प्रतिबंधित नहीं
होना चाहिए। इस आशय का स्वप्रमाणित पत्र निविदाकार द्वारा निर्धारित घोषणा पत्र परिशिष्ट-6 अनुसार
निविदा प्रस्तुत करने के दौरान अपलोड किया जाना अनिवार्य है। ऐसे निविदाकार द्वारा निविदा में भाग
लिये जाने पर निविदाकार की निविदा यथा स्थिति में निरस्त करते हुए , अधिकतम 03 वर्ष के लिए काली
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
सूचीबद्ध किया जाएगा, तथा अमानत राशि (अर्नेस्ट मनी डिपॉजिट) भी जब्त की जाएगी। यदि
निविदाकार को निविदा दस्तावेजकी कं डिका क्रमांक-6.3 अनुसार अमानत राशि जमा करने की
छू ट प्राप्त है तो ऐसे निविदाकार से अमानत राशि के समतुल्य राशि उनके कार्पोरे शन में अन्य
किसी भी परिवहन कार्य हेतु अनुबंधित समान फर्म के लम्बित परिवहन देयकों से
वसूल/समायोजित कर ली जावेगी।
विशेषः - अपलोड किया जाने वाला घोषणा पत्र 100 रूपये के स्टाम्प पेपर पर नोटराईज्ड होना
चाहिए एवं निविदा आमंत्रण सूचना में दर्शित ऑनलाईन निविदा जमा करने हेतु निर्धारित अंतिम
तिथि के पूर्व (निविदा सूचना प्रकाशन एवं निविदा प्रस्तुती हेतु निर्धारित अंतिम तिथि के मध्य) का
होना चाहिए। प्रत्येक सेक्टर के लिए पृथक-पृथक घोषणा पत्र होना चाहिए।
9. Clause 5.6 inter alia requires that the declaration affidavit should be on a
Rs.100/- stamp paper. Subsequently by notice dated 12.09.2025, clause 5.6 was
amended and Rs.200/- was substituted in place of Rs.100/-. We may note that
clause 5.6 stipulates that the declaration affidavit should be in accordance with
Annexure-6. Further clause 8.1 stipulates that the checklist of documents as
mentioned in a Annexure-4 has to be uploaded. Annexure-4 at serial number 12
talks of the declaration affidavit and once again refers to Annexure-6.
Annexure-6 is the format of the declaration affidavit, which has a note at the
bottom and the note stipulates that the declaration affidavit should be on a
Rs.100/- stamp paper. It is an admitted position that the note in Annexure-6
has not been amended and still continues to read "stamp paper of Rs.100/-A".
10. It is an admitted position that Annexure-6 has not been amended. Learned
counsel for respondent candidly admit that there is an error in the corrigendum
inasmuch as the note in Annexure-6 has not been amended.
11. The factual matrix clearly shows that after the NIT was issued on
03.09.2025, a corrigendum though was issued on 12.09.2025 amending clause
5.6 to the effect that the stamp paper was changed from Rs.100 to Rs.200, but
there was no corresponding amendment to note to Annexure-6.
12. As noticed above, clause 5.6 also stipulates that the declaration affidavit
should be in format Annexure-6. Clause 8.1 refers to Annexure-4, which is the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
checklist of document and Annexure-4 refers to the declaration affidavit in the
format Annexure-6. Clearly there is an ambiguity in the tender document and
there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the bidders as to whether the
declaration affidavit was required to be submitted on a Rs.200/- stamp paper or
Rs.100/- stamp paper. The benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the
person who is submitting a bid. No doubt, law stipulates that if there is an
ambiguity in interpreting a tender document, the interpretation given by the
tender inviting authority has to prevail, but in the instant case it is not a case of
interpretation of the tender document, but it is a case of a mistake in a tender
document, leading to an ambiguity. Clearly, the mistake in the tender document
cannot be fatal to the bid submitted by the bidder and benefit of doubt has to be
given to the bidder.
13. We may further note that the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the condition of filing a declaration affidavit on a prescribed
stamp paper was an ancillary condition and not an essential condition relatable
to the performance of the subject contract. Reference may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation (supra),
wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
***The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories
- those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others
which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved
by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be
required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the
authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance
of the condition in appropriate case.***
14. Clearly the submission of a declaration affidavit on the prescribed stamp
paper of Rs.200/- cannot be relatable to the capacity or capability of the bidder
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
to perform the contract particularly in a case, where there is an ambiguity in the
tender document itself.
15. Reference may also be had to be judgment of the Seven Judges Bench of
the Supreme Court in, In Re: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996
AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme
Court has held as under:-
" 54. Section 35 of the Stamp Act is unambiguous. It stipulates, "No
instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence..." The
term "admitted in evidence" refers to the admissibility of the
instrument. Sub-section (2) of Section 42, too, states that an instrument
in respect of which stamp duty is paid and which is endorsed as such
will be "admissible in evidence". The effect of not paying duty or
paying an inadequate amount renders an instrument inadmissible and
not void. Non-stamping or improper stamping does not result in the
instrument becoming invalid. The Stamp Act does not render such an
instrument void. The non-payment of stamp duty is accurately
characterised as a curable defect. The Stamp Act itself provides for the
manner in which the defect may be cured and sets out a detailed
procedure for it. It bears mentioning that there is no procedure by
which a void agreement can be "cured"."
16. The Seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the effect of
not paying duty or paying an inadequate amount does not render the instrument
inadmissible or void. Non stamping or improper stamping does not result in the
instrument becoming invalid.
17. In the instant case, petitioners have filed their declaration affidavits and
deposed with regard to the conditions that was stipulated in the format. The only
error is that the document is insufficiently stamped. In view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that such an instrument is not
inadmissible or invalid. It would be in a different situation, if petitioners had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5219
failed to depose with regard to the conditions mentioned in the affidavit. Merely
because the document is insufficiently stamped, it will not render the same
invalid particularly in the facts of the present case when, as noticed above, there
is an error in the tender notice itself leading to an ambiguity.
18. We are accordingly of the view that the rejection of the bids of the
petitioners solely on the ground that the declaration affidavit was insufficiently
stamped is not sustainable. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. Respondent
is directed to re-evaluate the technical bids of the petitioner to ascertain as to
whether they are technically compliant except with regard to the deficiency of
the stamp paper. Petitioners shall make good the deficient stamp paper within a
period of one week from today. Respondent shall thereafter evaluate the bids
afresh and proceed further in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner in
W.P.No.45727/2025 is technically qualified then his financial bid as also the
financial bid of respondent no.3 shall be re-evaluated and appropriate steps
thereafter be taken in accordance with the tender conditions.
19. All petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VPA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR,
2.5.4.20=ee1543b0bc2ec1b1595fb66851228f681c260b8f06
VAISHALI TRIPATHI
b64b93f91e7178c6c207e2, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH JABALPUR,CID - 7035013, postalCode=482001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=2fd01426b1f4bb0450a39e5420dc057df5ea9
1b5dd3186561987bcaeb84f5604, cn=VAISHALI TRIPATHI
Date: 2026.01.21 11:09:13 +05'30'
