Delhi High Court
Great Eastern Energy Corporation … vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 May, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 04.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 23.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 4959/2026, CM APPL. 24383/2026, CM APPL.
24384/2026 and CM APPL. 27530/2026
GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr.
Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr.
Shivank Diddi, Mr. Anuj
Shrotriya and Mr. Arsh Alok,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber,
Ms. Arani Mukherjee, Mr.
Vinay Singh Bist and Mr.
Shubendhu Kaushik, Advs. for
R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr. Sagar
Arora, Mr. Shreyansh Rathi,
Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, Mr.
Abhinandan Sharma, Mr. Amit
Gupta and Mr. Naman, Advs.
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner by invoking writ
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 1 of 23
15:07:21
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, essentially seeks directions to treat its bid for Coal Bed Methane
(CBM) Block SR-ONHP(CBM)-2025/2 in Raniganj Coalfield, West
Bengal, as validly submitted in the Special CBM Bid Rounder-2025
and to consider the same along with other bids, or, in the alternative,
to reconduct the bidding process for the said block.
2. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that its bid could not
be completed due to an alleged technical malfunction/error that arose
at the critical stage of online price bid submissions on the e-bidding
portal, which displayed that the net worth of the Petitioner was
insufficient.
3. The question that arises in the present case is as to whether the
Petitioner stood deprived of opportunity to submit its financial bid
owing to a technical malfunction in the bid portal?
4. To answer the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate to
understand the turn of events that took place. Pursuant to the
Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy („HELP‟), Respondent
No.1 through Respondent No.2, floated a Notice Inviting Offers
(„NIO‟) dated 15.04.2025 under the Open Average Licensing Policy
(„OALP‟), thereby inviting online bids for three Onland CBM Blocks,
including the subject CBM Block, on a revenue sharing basis.
5. The NIO prescribed, inter alia, minimum net worth
requirements, architecture of bidding process and the twin
requirement of valid bid submission, namely, timely online
submission through the DGH/Respondent No.2 e-portal, andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 2 of 23
15:07:21
mandatory submission of hard copies of documents along with bid
bond and supporting Bank Guarantee or Insurance surety Bond in lieu
of net worth. Additionally, in terms of the NIO, where the net worth of
a bidder was less than the prescribed minimum net worth, the bidder
had the option of topping up the same through a Bank Guarantee.
However, the bid including the financial bid was requested to be
uploaded online.
6. Initially, the deadline for closure of bid submission was
18.02.2026, however, the same was extended till 05.03.2026 (12:00
hrs.) for all bidders. Upon closure of the bidding window, the online
bids were opened by the Respondents and four entities namely, Oil
India Limited, Essar Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
Limited, Consortium of: Oilmax Energy Pvt. Ltd. and SAS Infotech
Pvt. Ltd. and lnvenire Petrodyne Limited were found to have
submitted their complete bid.
7. It may be noted that while the system displayed the status of
other bidders as submitted on the portal, the Petitioner‟s status
reflected as not submitted.
8. It is the Petitioner‟s case that on 05.03.2026, after physically
submitting the mandatory documents, it proceeded to complete the e-
filing formalities on the e-portal. However, during the course of
submission, the e-bidding portal allegedly closed, resulting in
termination of the Petitioner‟s session and consequent non-submission
of its bid.
9. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner on the same date
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 3 of 23
15:07:21
addressed an email communication to Respondent No.2, alleging a
technical malfunction in the bidding portal and requesting
consideration of its bid. Upon receipt of the said representation,
Respondent No.2 sought comments from C-1 India Private Limited
[hereinafter after referred to as the „Portal Operator‟], the operator of
the e-bidding portal. In response, the Portal Operator furnished an
Audit Trail Report detailing the sequence of events recorded on the
system logs with the following comments:
“Dear Sir,
With reference to the concern raised regarding bid submission, the
matter has been examined.
“As per the system Audit logs (Attached), the vendor initiated the bid
on 05-03-2026 at 09:43:15 and updated the Techno-Commercial
details, which is the first step for initiating the bid submission process.
Subsequently, the vendor paid the tender fee and uploaded the
reference copy of the fee on 05-03- 2026 at 11:01:02. Thereafter, the
vendor uploaded the technical documents as required by DGH until
05-03-2026 at 11:47:26.
Further, the vendor started filling the price bid at 05-03-2026 at
11:51:56, which continued until 11:59:32.
Additionally, another vendor, Mis Invenire Petrodyne Limited, also
submitted their bid around the same time on 05-03-2026 at 11:47:10,
which indicates that the system was functioning smoothly during the
bid submission period.
Regards,
Sandeep Bhandari”
10. Subsequently, the representation made by the Petitioner was
considered and in view of the aforesaid response of the Portal
Operator, the allegations raised by the Petitioner were found to be
unsubstantiated. Consequently, when the Petitioner visited the office
of the Respondent No.2, seeking reconsideration of its bid, the said
request was declined. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached
the Court seeking interference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 4 of 23
15:07:21
11. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner has
contended that, its net worth as on 31.03.2025 was USD 86.60
million, far exceeding the prescribed minimum net worth requirement
of USD 2.5 million as well as its own committed work programme bid
of USD 41.65 million for 40 wells.
12. It has also been urged that the Petitioner had obtained and
submitted requisite bid bond Bank Guarantee in favour of Respondent
No.1 in the amount of USD 1,05,000, to Respondent No.2 on
05.03.2025, against which a Document Submission Receipt (DSR)
was also issued.
13. In substance, it is the Petitioner‟s case that it had abided by all
the terms and conditions provided in the NIO to qualify as a bidder
and it was solely due to the malfunction of the e-bidding portal that it
could not proceed further and submit its bid.
14. Per contra, learned ASG representing the Respondents has
argued that the entire process was a system driven programme and
there is no material on record to prove that it was on account of any
technical glitch, that the Petitioner failed to upload its financial bid.
15. While relying upon the portal logs and the Audit Trail Report
furnished by the Portal Operator, it has been urged that no system side
error or malfunction was recorded during the relevant period,
particularly when other bidders had successfully uploaded their bids
during the same timeframe as the Petitioner.
16. At the outset, we deem it necessary to briefly highlight that,
learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner is, in essence,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 5 of 23
15:07:21
inviting this Court to resolve a technical and fact-intensive dispute
between a bidder and tendering authority. However, such scrutiny
would necessarily require examination of the correctness and
completeness of activity logs maintained by the Portal Operator and
internal computational logic applied by the system while processing
the financial data of the Petitioner, thereby generating the alleged
message of insufficient net worth.
17. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner has
contended that the Petitioner had manually entered the correct figures
reflecting a net worth of USD 86.60 million and a bid value of USD
41.65 million. On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing
the Respondent, has urged that the system recorded no error and other
bidders had successfully completed their submissions on the portal,
more so, at the same time frame as that of the Petitioner.
18. The aforesaid submissions, if taken into consideration for the
purpose of adjudication in the present case, would lead to delving into
a detailed scrutiny of factual matrix of the case, which, as evident,
remains disputed. Such an exercise would be inconsistent with the
restraint ordinarily observed by a Writ Court in judicial review of
contractual and tender matters, where the Court is concerned primarily
with the decision-making process rather than the merits of competing
factual positions.
19. The contention of learned senior counsel representing the
Petitioner that its bid should be considered since it has already
submitted the hard copy of the mandatory documents is devoid of
merit. The NIO mandated submission of bids both online through the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 6 of 23
15:07:21
e-bidding portal as well as in physical form with requisite documents,
thereby making compliance with both requirements essential. As is
evident, the Petitioner has failed to submit its financial bid.
Additionally, since the submission of mandatory documents in hard
copies, did not contain the submission of financial bids, the twin
requirement of the bid process remained incomplete at the behest of
the Petitioner, thereby making it ineligible for participation in the
bidding process of the NIO.
20. In this regard, we shall also advert to the terms of the NIO,
governing the entire bidding process. While Clause 7 of the NIO
provided for rejection upon non-submission of hard copies, the same
cannot be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Clause 1(iv) which
provides that an e-bidding portal has been specifically set up for the
purpose of the NIO, as well as Clause 4(i), which mandates
submission through the said portal. The above stated inclusions in the
NIO, makes it crystal clear that online submission remained a sine qua
non for participation in the bidding process.
21. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the
Petitioner that Respondents‟ inaction against the malfunction of their
own portal is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, is equally
devoid of merit. To deal with the said contention, reference is to be
made to the emails dated 17.02.2026, 24.02.2026, 26.02.2026 and
03.03.2026 issued to bidders by the Respondents, intimating them
about the last date for submission of the bids, i.e., on 05.03.2026,
thereby also requesting them to complete registration. Despite these
communications, the Petitioner commenced the bidding process only
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 7 of 23
15:07:21
on 05.03.2026, i.e., on the last date of submission.
22. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention of the learned
senior counsel, it further becomes imperative to highlight the activities
performed by the Petitioner as well as other bidders on the portal,
marking a completion, or in case of the Petitioner non-completion, of
the bidding process. Set out below, in tabular format, are the activities
undertaken by the bidders, on the basis of the Audit Trail Report
provided by the Portal Operator:
OILMAX ENERGY PVT LTD.
S. Sub Activity Name Operation Date and
No. Module time
1. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 04-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 23:53:38
2. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 04-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 23:54:42
3. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 04-03-2026
Formed 23:56:06
Consortium
4. Techno Set Priority. Save 04-03-2026
Commercial 23:56:16
Submission
5. Techno Set Priority. Save 04-03-2026
Commercial 23:56:25
Submission
6. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 04-03-2026
Formed 23:58:32
Consortium
7. Techno Set Priority. Save 04-03-2026
Commercial 23:58:44
Submission
8. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 04-03-2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 8 of 23
15:07:21
tender Fees Tender/RFP document Tab. 23:59:16
9. Add View Formed Consortium. View 05-03-2026
Authorized 10:21:54
Subsidiary
Vendor
10. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 05-03-2026
Formed 10:22:00
Consortium
11. Price Bid Price Bid Data Save Save 05-03-2026
Successfully. 10:23:09
12. EMD Saved EMD During Save 05-03-2026
Payment Bidding. 10:25:38
13. EMD Save EMD Record Save 05-03-2026
Payment document Details. 10:26:03
14. Undertaking Saved vendor Undertaking Save 05-03-2026
10:26:41
15. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:26:56
in Bidding
16. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 10:27:06
in Bidding
17. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:27:08
in Bidding
18. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:28:37
in Bidding
19. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 10:29:02
in Bidding
20. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:29:04
in Bidding
21. Bid Final Bid Submission Submit 05-03-2026
Creation 10:29:19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 9 of 23
15:07:21
&
Submission
ESSAR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION
LIMITEDS. Sub Activity Name Operation Date and
No. Module time
1. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 05-03-2026
Formed 09:37:48
Consortium
2. Preview Proceed call first page Update 05-03-2026
Formed 10:36:10
Consortium
3. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fees Tender/RFP document Tab. 10:36:29
4. Techno Set Priority Save 05-03-2026
Commercial 10:36:35
Submission
5. Price Bid Price Bid Data Save Save 05-03-2026
Successfully. 10:38:26
6. EMD Saved EMD During Save 05-03-2026
Payment Bidding. 10:41:50
7. EMD Save EMD Record Save 05-03-2026
Payment document Details. 10:44:07
8. Undertaking Saved Vendor Undertaking. Save 05-03-2026
10:44:58
9. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:45:34
in Bidding
10. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:45:57
in Bidding
11. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 10:46:03
in BiddingSignature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 10 of 23
15:07:21
12. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 10:46:22
in Bidding
13. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:46:24
in Bidding
14. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 10:46:36
in Bidding
15. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 10:46:49
in Bidding
16. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 10:46:51
in Bidding
17. Bid Final Bid Submission Submit 05-03-2026
Creation & 10:47:31
amp;
Submission
GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION
LIMITED/PETITIONER
S. Sub Activity Name Operation Date and
No. Module time
1. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 05-03-2026
Formed 09:43:15
Consortium
2. Techno Techno Commercial Update 05-03-2026
Commercial Submission Updated 09:43:23
Submission Successfully.
3. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 05-03-2026
Formed 09:58:05
Consortium
4. Tender Fee Online Payment Initiate. Save 05-03-2026
Payment 09:58:47
5. Tender Fee Online Payment Initiate. Save 05-03-2026
Payment 10:20:57
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 11 of 23
15:07:21
6. Tender Fee Online Payment Initiate. Save 05-03-2026
Payment 10:55:53
7. Tender Fee Online Payment Success Save 05-03-2026
Payment 10:57:43
8. Upload Upload Fee Record Upload 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Document Details. 11:01:02
9. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 05-03-2026
Formed 11:02:39
Consortium
10. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:06:40
11. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:07:06
12. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:08:13
13. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:09:09
14. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:10:02
15. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:11:22
16. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:12:54
17. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:17:39
18. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:21:05
19. Preview Proceed call first page. Update 05-03-2026
Formed 11:32:27
Consortium
20. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:36:04
21. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:37:15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 12 of 23
15:07:21
22. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:41:04
23. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:43:08
24. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:43:34
25. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 11:47:07
26. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:47:12
27. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:47:17
28. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:47:26
29. Price Bid Price Bid data saved Save 05-03-2026
successfully 11:51:56
30. Price Bid Price Bid data saved Save 05-03-2026
successfully 11:52:12
31. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:52:36
32. Price Bid Price Bid data saved Save 05-03-2026
successfully 11:53:49
33. Price Bid Price Bid data saved Save 05-03-2026
successfully 11:58:11
34. Price Bid Price Bid data saved Save 05-03-2026
successfully 11:59:32
INVENIRE PETRODYNE LIMITED
S. Sub Activity Name Operation Date and
No. Module time
1. Preview Proceed call first page Update 05-03-2026
Formed 09:52:55
Consortium
2. Upload Delete Additional NIO Docs Delete 05-03-2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 13 of 23
15:07:21
Tender Fee 09:53:12
3. Upload Upload Additional NIO Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Vendor Doc. 10:00:37
4. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 10:00:45
5. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 10:03:37
6. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 10:03:37
7. Upload Upload NIO Vendor Doc. Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee 10:12:42
8. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 10:29:01
9. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:14:18
10. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:28:59
11. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:35:40
12. Upload Save clicked on Upload Save 05-03-2026
Tender Fee Tender/RFP document Tab. 11:35:40
13. Techno Set Priority Save 05-03-2026
Commercial 11:35:50
Submission
14. Price Bid Price Bid Data Save Save 05-03-2026
Successfully 11:38:40
15. Price Bid Price Bid Data Save Save 05-03-2026
Successfully 11:39:29
16. Price Bid Price Bid Data Save Save 05-03-2026
Successfully 11:40:30
17. Undertaking Saved Vendor Undertaking. Save 05-03-2026
11:44:12
18. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 11:44:33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 14 of 23
15:07:21
in Bidding
19. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 11:44:44
in Bidding
20. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier. 11:44:46
in Bidding
21. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier 11:44:58
in Bidding
22. Forms Bid submission password View 05-03-2026
Submission verified. 11:45:08
in Bidding
23. Forms During bidding, envelope Save 05-03-2026
Submission saved by supplier 11:45:10
in Bidding
24. EMD Save EMD Record Save 05-03-2026
Payment document Details. 11:45:58
25. Undertaking Saved Vendor Undertaking. Save 05-03-2026
11:46:39
26. Bid Final Bid Submission Submit 05-03-2026
Creation 11:47:10
&
Submission
23. Upon perusal of the above produced tables, it is evident that
after the price bid data was saved successfully, the bidders were to
carry out the following activities, “save vendor undertaking during
bidding, envelop to be saved by supplier, bid submission password
was to be verified, envelop was to be saved by the supplier, password
verified, envelop saved by the supplier, EMD to be saved, during
bidding, save EMD Record document details (which could be done at
any time either prior or post the price bid submission) and after the
completion of the above steps, the final bid submission was to take
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 15 of 23
15:07:21
place”. However, as is apparent from the above table, in relation to the
Petitioner‟s activities, neither of these subsequent steps were ever
taken by the Petitioner.
24. At this stage, the activities undertaken by the Petitioner, in
comparison with the other bidders, also merit consideration. A perusal
of the table reflects that Oilmax (Supra) commenced its process on
04.03.2026 at 23.53.38 hours and concluded the activities relating to
upload of tender fees at 23:59:16 hours on the same date. Thereafter, it
logged into the portal again on 05.03.2026, starting at 10:21:54 hours
and successfully submitting its final bid by 10:29:19 hours.
25. Similarly, Essar Oil (Supra), commenced its bid process,
including uploading of documents, on 05.03.2026 at 09:37:48 hours
and successfully completed the bid process at 10:47:31 hours.
Likewise, Invenire (Supra) initiated the process on 05.03.2026 at
09:52:55 hours and successfully submitted its final bid at 11:47:10
hours.
26. However, when the timeline of activities performed by the
Petitioner is examined, the same does not persuade the Court to accept
that it acted with due diligence and bona fide intent while completing
its bidding process, which is evident from the sequence of events,
reflected in the Audit Trail Report.
27. The Petitioner initiated the process on 05.03.2026 at 09:43:15
hours but completed the online payment only at 10:57:43 hours.
Thereafter, there was a gap of nearly 10 minutes before the Petitioner
commenced uploading its “NIO Vendor Documents” at 11:06:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 16 of 23
15:07:21
hours. The said activity continued till 11:21:05, subsequently, an entry
reflecting “proceed call first page” was recorded at 11:32:27 hours,
whereafter the Petitioner again reverted to the activity of uploading
“NIO Vendor Documents” at multiple instances between 11:36:04
hours and 11:47:07 hours, showing an approximate time of 41 minutes
being consumed for upload of NIO documents alone.
28. The Petitioner, while making its case has not provided any
explanation whatsoever for the aforesaid delay, nor has it argued that
such delay was caused on account of the malfunction of the portal.
Even otherwise, Invenire (Supra) was able to successfully complete
its final bid submission, around the same time stamp, i.e., 11:47:10
hours, thereby, indicating that there was no error in the portal.
29. Moreover, the Audit Trail Report reflects that the Petitioner, at
11:47:12 hours, under the sub module “upload tender fee”, performed
the activity “save clicked on upload tender document/RFP document
tab”, which was also reflected at multiple time stamps of 11:47:17
hours, 11:47:26 hours and again at 11:52:36 hours. Notably, after
11:47:26 hours, an activity reflecting “Price Bid data save
successfully” has been recorded at 11:51:56 hours, 11:52:12 hours,
11:53:49 hours, 11:58:11 hours and 11:59:32 hours.
30. The significance of the above-mentioned timestamps lies in the
fact that despite successful saving of “price bid submission” recorded
at 11:51:56 hours and 11:52:12 hours, the portal recorded an activity
of “save clicked on upload tender document/RFP document tab” again
at 11:52:36 hours. Whereafter, the activity of “Price Bid Data Save
Successfully”, was again registered till its active last time stamp of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 17 of 23
15:07:21
11:59:32 hours. The Petitioner has also failed to furnish any
explanation for the change in activity back to the sub-module of
“upload tender fee”, after price bid success.
31. Despite the aforesaid sequence of incomplete and repetitive
activities, the Petitioner, while arguing its case, has made an attempt
to alter its original stand. For the first time, in its Rejoinder Affidavit,
the Petitioner has claimed that it was forcibly logged out at 11:59:32
hours, i.e., prior to 12:00 hours, a stand which was never taken by it in
its representation or the Writ Petition. Such plea, in our considered
opinion, is clearly an afterthought. The same is also evident from the
communication dated 05.03.2026, addressed by the Petitioner to the
Respondent, wherein the Petitioner merely referred to an alleged
technical error at the final stage and made no assertion regarding any
forcible logout from the portal.
32. Be that as it may, what is of utmost importance is that despite
the continuous and rather inconsistent activities recorded on part of
the Petitioner, it has only argued that it was wrongly logged out a few
seconds prior to the closure of the bidding deadline. However, such a
plea cannot be considered as it lacks merit. Firstly, the Audit Trail
Report clearly reflects multiple fragmented and incomplete activities
on the part of the Petitioner, coupled with substantial lapses of time
between one stage and another, despite being fully aware that the
deadline for bid submission was imminently approaching. The
aforesaid action of the Petitioner clearly demonstrates a clear lack of
diligence in completing the bidding process within the prescribed
time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 18 of 23
15:07:21
33. Secondly, the Petitioner has evidently attempted to alter its
stand, by taking a new plea in its Rejoinder Affidavit. In these
circumstances, the conduct of the Petitioner does not inspire
confidence so as to persuade this Court to accept the allegation of
forcible logout or technical malfunction as the cause for non-
submission of the bid.
34. Upon a perusal of the material placed on record, in particular
the Audit Trail Report, it remains undisputed that the session of the
Petitioner remained active and bid related activities were carried out
until 11:59:32 hours, though no completed submission was ultimately
recorded. However, what remains disputed is whether the session
termination and alleged failure to submit the bid was attributable to a
genuine technical malfunction in the portal or connectivity issues at
the behest of the user/Petitioner or the normal operation of a
session/time-out mechanism.
35. In view of the detailed examination undertaken in the preceding
paragraphs, we are convinced that the Petitioner has not shown any
bona fide intent in its attempt to submit the final bid. Moreover, the
detailed examination of record in Audit Trail Report, tends to negate
any systematic malfunction, a position which remains uncontroverted
by the Petitioner, especially in respect of successful submission of one
of the bidders.
36. As such, the Petitioner‟s allegation of a bid value or net-worth
validation error is neither manifestly corroborated nor disproved by
the logs as provided by the Portal Operator. Accordingly, in absence
of material to prove that the Petitioner was prevented from submitting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 19 of 23
15:07:21
its bid successfully on account of technical glitch or forcible logging
out, it would not be appropriate to order re-tender. More so, the
existence and cause of the claimed technical glitch remain a live
factual controversy rather than an established fact.
37. The contention made by the Petitioner that the issuance of DSR
and acknowledgment of its active session till shortly before the
deadline amount to an admission supporting its case is also liable to be
rejected. While the aforesaid circumstances show participation on
account of the Petitioner, and also remain uncontested by the
Respondents, they fall short of constituting an admission that the
portal malfunctioned or that the Petitioner‟s bid ought to be deemed as
successfully submitted online despite the record reflecting a contrary
position. There is no occasion to draw presumption in favour of the
valid and completed submission bid of petitioner‟s bid in absence
concrete supporting material.
38. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel
representing the Petitioner contended that, since the bids of other
bidders allegedly did not include the Bank Guarantee in lieu of
shortfall of net worth, the Petitioner‟s case stands on a pari materia
footing and ought to be considered. The said contention, however, is
legally untenable. The User Guide for CBM Tender Bidding
specifically identifies „BG in lieu of shortfall of Net Worth vis-à-vis
value of Bid Work Programme, as applicable‟ as a mandatory
document required to be uploaded online.
39. In this regard, it also becomes important to note that, as per the
Compliance Affidavit filed by the Respondent, the remaining four
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 20 of 23
15:07:21
bidders had submitted their bids without furnishing any Bank
Guarantee. Consequently, there was no occasion for the portal to insist
upon the Petitioner uploading a Bank Guarantee, a case originally
made out by the Petitioner.
40. Significantly, the Note appended thereto expressly stipulates
that where any mandatory document is not relevant or applicable to a
bidder, a self-certified declaration stating „Not Applicable‟ is required
to be uploaded against the concerned document. It further clarifies that
the system would not permit submission of the bid if any mandatory
document field was left blank. It is pertinent to note that each of the
concerned bidders complied with the said stipulation by uploading a
self-certified declaration marked “Not Applicable”. In contrast, the
Petitioner has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any self-
certified declaration abiding by the said requirement.
41. In view of the aforegoing, the argument of learned senior
counsel representing the Petitioner that the alleged e-portal
malfunction was attributable to the Respondents lacks merit and has
no nexus with the material placed on record. In particular, the logs
provided by the Portal Operator show that another bidder, who had
initiated the process later than the Petitioner, was nevertheless able to
successfully complete bid submission within the stipulated timeline.
42. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court is expected to examine
matter within the limited contours of judicial review. The
Respondents, having taken a considered decision on the basis of the
contemporaneous system records, cannot be faulted, especially when
the entire bidding process was automated and system-driven rather
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 21 of 23
15:07:21
than manual.
43. Learned senior counsel‟s reliance on the judgment passed in
W.P.(C) 9183/2022 captioned Adani Welspun Exploration Limited v
Union of India, is misplaced. It is evident that vide order dated
07.10.2022, the same Division Bench clarified that the said judgment
is in the peculiar facts of the case. Thus, it cannot be read as an
authority for the proposition that, in every case where a portal error is
alleged, the writ Court must assume the mantle of a technical
fact-finding tribunal and investigate server logs and algorithms. In the
present case, the divergence between the parties on the core factual
narrative is far too wide to permit summary adjudication.
44. Similarly, the reliance placed on Cineom Broadcast India Ltd.
v Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai1, is also misplaced. In the
said case, the Court found an undisputed, unresolved portal
malfunction not attributable to the bidder, combined with the
authority‟s failure to invoke its own curative three-day intimation
clause and therefore granted a one-time opportunity to participate
without rewriting the tender. On the contrary, in the instant case, the
NIO contained no equivalent curative notice clause, and the
Respondent No.2, after seeking technical assistance from the Portal
Operator, has ruled out the technical glitch narrative.
45. Likewise, the reliance placed on L&T Hydrocarbon
Engineering Ltd. v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr.2 is
also misplaced, since it is an electronic commerce case on when an
1
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1178
2
2018 SCC OnLine Del 9254
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 22 of 23
15:07:21
already dispatched electronic bid is deemed received under Article 15
of the Model Law, in a situation where the tender conditions and
statutory framework accommodate that construct. On the contrary, the
present case concerns an admittedly non-submitted bid under the NIO
which makes online submission of bids a condition precedent.
46. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, no ground for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
47. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. The pending
applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
May 23, 2026
jai/hr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.05.2026 W.P.(C) 4959/2026 Page 23 of 23
15:07:21
