JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - Grievance raised by the petitioner is against the order dated 24.12.2019 and the communication thereof vide E-mail of the same date, informing the petitioner the rejection of Technical Bid by Technical Evaluation Committee which found that Net Worth Certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be erroneous. 2. The Tender Bid submitted by the petitioner for Sand Mining Group, Panna District was in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (referred as 'NIT') by the respondent/Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd. on 07.10.2019. The initial upset price was fixed at Rs.15 crores. The tender bid was to be submitted in two parts, viz, Technical Bid and Financial Bid. 3. The NIT stipulated certain essential conditions to be adhered to. One such essential conditions, around which centres the controversy are contained in Clause 5( [k ) and Clause 6(v)( d )(i) & (ii) which inter alia required the prospective bidders to submit Net Worth Certificate by the Chartered Accountant based on Audit Account showing stand-alone net worth of the bidder as on 31.03.2019 not less than 50% of the upset value of the Sand Mining Group. For ready reference, these Clauses are reproduced below : 4. The petitioner submitted the Net Worth certificate dated 25.11.2019 issued by the Chartered Accountant showing Net Worth of Rs.7,91,92,720/-. Though it is contended in Paragraph 5.5 of the petition that the Net Worth Certificate is filed alongwith a calculation sheet; however, no such calculation sheet is appended with the said certificate. 5. Be that as it may. That, during the process of evaluation of technical bid, a complaint was received by the Authorities concerned from respondent No.3 on 04.12.2019 stating therein that Net Worth Certificate filed by the petitioner for Rs.7.92 crores is totally baseless, false and forged. The objection raised were that : (i) the return filed by the petitioner in format ITR-2 (i.e. for individual and HUF's not having income from profits and gains of business of profession), therefore, there was no Audited Financial Statement as claimed through the Net Worth Certificate said to be prepared on the basis of information, explanations and records (Books). (ii) the total income filed by the petitioner during his lifetime was less than 1 crore rupees, therefore, the Net Worth of Rs.7.92 Crores was sham. (iii) Audited Financial Statement was not filed in any department. 6. (ii) the total income filed by the petitioner during his lifetime was less than 1 crore rupees, therefore, the Net Worth of Rs.7.92 Crores was sham. (iii) Audited Financial Statement was not filed in any department. 6. The complaint led to enquiry by the Technical Evaluation Committee comprising of 4 members, one of them being a Chartered Accountant. The said committee submitted its report brought on record and collectively marked as Annexure R/2 with the return filed by respondent No.3. The said Committee gave following report after deliberating the matter and hearing the petitioner. 7. The proposal for rejection of Technical Bid was duly accepted by the High Level Committee comprising of Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Director, Directorate Geology and Mines and Executive Director, Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation, which was further accepted by the State. 8. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been discriminated and though he furnished the Net Worth Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant but the same was arbitrarily rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee. 9. These contentions when tested on the anvil of the findings recorded by the Technical Evaluation Committee, does not stand to reason. 10. It is seen from the record that the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd. after receiving the complaint on 04.12.2019 wrote a letter to the petitioner on 05.12.2019 directing him to produce his Audited Financial Statements as of 31.03.2019 on 06.12.2019 till 5 p.m. Pursuant whereof, the petitioner evidently submitted the balance sheet as on 31.03.2019 signed by the Chartered Accountant on 10.11.2019 containing the UDIN No.19424861AAAABS9638 which on verification has found to be withdrawn. The petitioner later appeared before the Authorities on 16.12.2019 and again relied on the certificate dated 25.11.2019 which was in similar terms as the earlier certificate, except that it was shown to have been prepared on the basis of information, explanations and records (fair market value) and not on audited accounts. 11. The petitioner along with his letter dated 16.12.2019 annexed the balance sheet signed by the Chartered Accountant on 17.11.2019 containing a UDIN No.19501951AAAAAU9432. On verification by the Authorities, it was found to have been generated on 16.12.2019 i.e. much after the last date of submission of bid which was 26.11.2019. 12. 11. The petitioner along with his letter dated 16.12.2019 annexed the balance sheet signed by the Chartered Accountant on 17.11.2019 containing a UDIN No.19501951AAAAAU9432. On verification by the Authorities, it was found to have been generated on 16.12.2019 i.e. much after the last date of submission of bid which was 26.11.2019. 12. The upshot of above analysis justify the conclusion arrived by the Technical Evaluation Committee that the Net Worth Certificate filed by the petitioner did not genuinely reflect his net worth which can neither be termed as arbitrary or perverse. 13. In view whereof, since the order of cancelling the Technical Bid of the petitioner cannot be faulted with, petition fails and is dismissed . No costs.