Kundan Gold Mines Private Limited, Thr. Authorized Representative, Gaurav Dua vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Director General, Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Nagpur And Ors.

-1- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8249 OF 2025
PETITIONER : Kundan Gold Mines Private Limited,
through its Authorized Representative
Shri Gaurav Dua, Mining Head, Aged
about 50 Years, having Registered
Office at Plot No. 205, Sector-4,
Phase-H, Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Director General, Directorate of
Geology and Mining N.S. Building,
st
East Wing, 1 Floor, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. MSTC Limited having its Registered
Office at Plot No. CF-18/2, Street
No.75, Action Area 1C, New Town,
Kolkata, 700156
Also at: West Regional Office
607-608 Raheja Centre, Nariman
Point, Mumbai – 400021.
3. Auro Infra Private Limited, Galaxy
st
Towers, 21 Floor, Wing A, Plot No.1,
Sy No. 83/1, Opp. Ikea Hyderabad
Knowledge City, TSIIC Raidurg,
Panmaktha, Hitec City, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 500081.
__________________________________________________________
Mr. J.T. Gilda, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A.J. Gilda, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. H.D. Dangre, Advocate with Mr. Sarabjeet Singh Saddal,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Akshay A. Naik, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Y.N. Sambre and
Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
__________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-2- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
th
DATE : 6 MAY , 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
Heard Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. A.J.
Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.S. Rao, learned AGP for
respondent No.1/State, Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, and Mr. Akshay A. Naik, learned Senior Counsel i/b.
Mr. Y.N. Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking challenge
to the impugned notice dated 12.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 –
Director General, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of
Maharashtra, Nagpur, declaring respondent No. 3 as the preferred
bidder for grant of a composite licence in respect of the Bhimsain Killa
Gold Block. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 to
resume the second round of the e-auction process for grant of the
composite licence for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block from the stage at
which it was allegedly interrupted on 11.12.2025 on account of
technical glitches, i.e., from 5:47 p.m. on 11.12.2025.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-3- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
4. Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued
that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to fully and effectively
participate in the second round of the e-auction conducted by
respondent No. 1 through the online portal owned/developed by
respondent No. 2, on account of a technical glitch in the said portal
during the auction process. According to him, the glitch prevented the
petitioner from making an upward revision in its final price offer within
the eight-minute window available under the auction process. It was
submitted that, despite clicking the “BID” button, the portal remained
unresponsive and failed to accept the petitioner’s revised final price
offer due to the said technical glitch. As a result thereof, the revised
offer of the petitioner could not be submitted, whereas the final price
offer submitted by respondent No. 3 came to be accepted, and
respondent No. 3 was consequently declared the preferred bidder for
grant of the composite licence for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block vide
the impugned notice dated 12.12.2025.
5. Respondent No. 1 issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated
25.07.2025 inviting electronic bids for grant of mining leases in respect
of two limestone blocks and grant of composite licences in respect of
seven mineral blocks, comprising one block of copper, one block of
copper and associated minerals, one block of gold associated with silver,
lead and copper, and four blocks of iron ore. The bidders were required
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-4- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
to register themselves on the website/portal of respondent No. 2,
namely MSTC Limited.
6. The Tender Document prescribed the following compliances
to be fulfilled by the bidders and laid down the following procedure for
the e-auction:
(i) In the first round of the e-auction, the bidders were required
to submit their technical bids comprising, inter alia, documentary
evidence establishing their eligibility under the Tender Document, the
Act, and the Rules framed thereunder to participate in the auction,
along with bid security and such other documents and payments as may
be specified in the Tender Document under Clause 5. The bidders were
also required to submit an initial price offer, being a percentage of the
Value of Mineral Despatched, which was required to be equal to or
greater than the reserve price of 2.5% as specified in Clause 9 of the
Tender Document. The same was to be submitted electronically, and
the technical bid was also required to be physically delivered to the
officials of respondent No. 1.
(ii) Thereafter, where the total number of technically qualified
bidders was three or more, the auction process was to proceed to the
second round of auction, wherein the qualified bidders were required to
submit their final price offers, being a percentage of the Value of
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-5- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
Mineral Despatched (“Final Price Offer”), which was required to be
higher than the floor price.
7. Since the principal dispute pertains to the alleged technical
glitch during the e-auction process conducted by respondent No. 2 in
the second round of the e-auction, it would be relevant to refer to the
procedure prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 25.07.2025,
which is at record at page No. 35 (Annexure–P1). The relevant portion,
namely clause (b) of Schedule III pertaining to the technical details
regarding the online electronic auction, reads thus:
b. Stage 2: Electronic Auction - Final Price Offer
a. Intimation to Qualified Bidders
Along with the above intimation, the Bidder shall also receive
information regarding applicable Floor Price for second round of
e-auction of the mineral block which is the highest initial price
offer received from the Technically Qualified Bidders.
It is expressly clarified that Bidders should not expect to receive
the information on the second highest IPO received from the
Technically Qualified Bidders as a matter of usual course.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the Bidder to regularly check
the MSTC website and log in to see whether it has qualified for a
certain mineral block or not. MSTC will not be responsible for
non-receipt of email by the Bidder and its consequences.
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
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-6- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
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.
For example, assuming that the initial scheduled close time for a
particular electronic auction is 1:00 pm and a Final Price Offer is
received at 12:55 pm, the scheduled close time shall be revised to
1:03 pm. Again if a Final Price Offer is received at 1:01 pm, the
scheduled close time shall be revised to 1:09 pm and so on. In the
event that no further Final Price Offer is received till 1:09 pm,
the electronic auction will close at 1:09 pm. The revised close
time will be displayed on screen and the Qualified Bidders are
advised to keep refreshing its webpage to get the latest
information.
The above example is only illustrative and meant for explaining
the e-auction process only.
During the process of electronic auction, the Bidder shall be
required to sign their bids with their respective Class III Signing
and Encryption Combo digital signature certificate (DSC) and
the use of which has been duly authorised on behalf of the Bidder
and which was used at the time of registration. Any digital
signature certificate other than the above shall not be acceptable
for bid submission by the system
Bidders may use 'Bidder's Guide' link available on login page for
the detailed procedure. Bidders in their own interest are advised
to get themselves acquainted with the electronic auction process
of auction platform provider by getting their Authorized
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-7- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
Representative trained beforehand through some demo electronic
auctions as per Clause 11.
Digital Signature Certificate
A Bidder shall be required to possess a valid Class III Signing and
Encryption Combo Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of signing
and encryption combo type to be able to submit its Bid and to
participate in the electronic auction on MSTC website. For this
purpose, Bidders shall be required to authorize its Authorized
Signatory to procure a class III DSC of signing and encryption
combo type from any Certifying Authority or their authorized
agencies in India.
The Bidder may note that only one user id will be mapped with a
given Class III Signing and Encryption Combo DSC for the
Authorized Signatory. DSC once mapped with a particular user id
of a Bidder will normally not be changed and therefore Bidders
are advised to carefully select the DSC.
The Class III Signing and Encryption Combo Digital Signature
Certificate will be used to digitally sign the Bids that the Bidder
will submit online.
It will be the sole responsibility of the Bidder and its respective
Authorized Signatory to maintain the secrecy of the password for
the Digital Signature Certificate. The Bidder and its Authorized
Signatory shall be solely responsible for any misuse of the DSC
and no complain / representation in this regard shall be
entertained at any stage by MSTC/State Government.”
8. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid procedure prescribed under
the Tender Document indicates that, during the process of e-auction,
the bidders were required to sign their bids using their respective Digital
Signature Certificates. The use of such Digital Signature Certificate was
required to be duly authorized on behalf of the bidder, and only upon
such login could further bidding be undertaken by the bidder.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-8- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
9. Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, has principally
argued that it was only on account of a technical glitch in the
system/portal of respondent No. 2, where the bidding process was
conducted, that the petitioner’s further bid could not be submitted;
otherwise, the petitioner would have been the successful bidder. Mr.
Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, invited our attention to the specific
pleadings in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition pointing out the
sequence of events relating to the alleged glitch, which read thus:
“9. However, the following events unfolded on the date for
submission of bids:
i. At 11:00 PM, the Petitioner logged into the MSTC portal
to participate in the second round of e-auction to submit i'ts
Final Price Offer. The floor price for the e-auction was set at 5.10
percent as per Clause 8.1 (A) (d) of the Tender Document.
ii. The Petitioner, along with other Qualified Bidders was
engaged in the e-auction till around 05:45 PM. The Final Price
offer submitted by the Petitioner at that time was 45.55 percent.
iii. At around 05:46 PM, Respondent No. 3 made a bid of
45.65 percent on the MSTC portal.
iv. At 05:47 PM, the Petitioner wanted to increase the Final
Price Offer and tried to submit it's Final Price Offer of 45.75
percent on the MSTC portal.
v. However, at 5:47 PM as soon as the Petitioner clicked on
the 'BID' button, the website / portal stopped working (hanged)
and showed that the page was unresponsive.
vi. The Applicant made immediate efforts to refresh, reload,
and regain access to the bidding interface; however, despite
repeated attempts, the system did not resume normal
functioning.
vii. Due to this, the Petitioner was not able to submit it's
revised final price offer and the prescribed bidding window
elapsed.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-9- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
10. Immediately after the Petitioner was unable to submit it's
revised final price offer due to the technical glitch on the
website / portal, the Petitioner vide email dated 11.12.2025 at
06:11 PM informed the Respondent No. 1 that the Respondent
No. 2's website / portal had glitched during the e-auction process
and also attached a video showing that the website / portal was
unresponsive as proof to the said email.”
10. Per contra, Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 – MSTC Limited, submitted that it is only the present
petitioner who has approached this Court alleging such a technical
glitch. There were several other bidders who had participated in the
aforesaid e-auction conducted by respondent No. 2, including the
successful bidder, i.e., respondent No. 3, and none of the bidders had
approached this Court with any complaint regarding any technical
glitch. He, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition is devoid
of any ground to be entertained.
11. When this Court heard the present petition on merits on
05.02.2026, Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, relied upon the
interim order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
Writ Petition (C) No. 8347/2025, so also the order dated 19.08.2024
passed by the Principal Seat of this Court at Mumbai in Writ Petition
No. 10131/2024 and other connected matters, in order to substantiate
the contention that the issue arising in the present writ petition is highly
technical in nature. He, therefore, requested this Court to refer the issue
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-10- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
involved in the present writ petition to an expert body in order to
ascertain whether the technical glitch alleged by the petitioner had, in
fact, occurred or not.
12. Since all the parties to the present writ petition acceded to
the aforesaid request, this Court, on 05.02.2026, passed the following
order:
“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that because of technical
glitch, it could not submit its bid. According to him, in similar
matters, the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court and the
Delhi High Court have appointed an expert to look into the issue
and asked to submit the report.
3. We find substance in the submissions of Shri Gilda, the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since this Court
does not possess expertise in the field, which is relating to the
Computer Science, it would be appropriate to appoint an expert
so that the expert to look into the grievances of the petitioner and
submit its report.
4. Shri Dangre, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 submits a list of such expert agencies.
5. With the consent of parties, we are of the opinion that the
issue shall be referred to the Indian Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT-In) which is the national nodal agency
under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
operational since 2004.
6. Accordingly, we request the Director General, CERT at
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
110 003, to look into the issue as involved in the present petition
relating to the alleged technical glitch at the end of the
respondent no.2 and submit a report within 10 days from today.
7. The respondent no.2 undertakes to communicate this
order to the Director General, CERT, New Delhi. In addition,
the petitioner shall also communicate this order to the CERT.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-11- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
8. If the petitioner wants to submit any submissions before
the CERT, New Delhi, it shall submit the same through e-mail or
by visiting the office of the CERT.
9. The CERT if deems it necessary to visit the Office of the
petitioner to inspect the System, it may do so.
10. Charges in this regard initially shall be borne by the
respondent no.2 and after receiving the report from CERT, New
Delhi, if no fault is found in the system of the respondent no.2, as
alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner shall reimburse the said
amount to the respondent no.2.
11. The Director General of CERT is requested to submit the
report in the matter, to the Registrar (Administration), High
Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, within 10 days from today.
12. The Registry shall also communicate this order to the
CERT, New Delhi.
13. Interim order to continue till then.
14. Place this matter on 16.02.2026 for further consideration.”
13. Thus, the Director General, CERT, New Delhi, was
requested to examine the issue involved in the present writ petition
relating to the alleged technical glitch at the end of respondent No. 2
and to submit a report. Accordingly, the expert body, CERT, vide
communication dated 09.03.2026 addressed to the Registrar
(Administration), High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,
submitted its report.
14. A perusal of the aforesaid detailed report submitted by
CERT, particularly Clause 4.3 thereof, sets out the detailed procedure
for e-bidding, which reads thus:
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-12- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
g y y g
( )
Information Technology Act, 2000 in the name of their Authorized Signatory.
4. 3 Process flow for e-Bidding
a. Select Login as Bidder
b. Enter User id and Password
c. Select State and click on Login button
d. System asked
for authentication through registered DSC (Digital
Signature Certificate)
~ -;
X !; mstcecommerce.com/auctionhome/mstc/processlogon_mkldsc_pki.jsp
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-13- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
e. On
selecting registered DSC, PIN verification window appears for further
authentication.
:;
mst~ommerct.corn/auctionhome/mstc/processlogon_mlcldsc_pkl.j,p
.... f4t .... --...i..-.-- -~ . - .... ~ ........... _____ __._.-,I,.-·-· ..
. , • . . ►• ·,,,..,; ••..• .;.. ...
,-i., --.·,
• :.;JJ' ·~J,Jt ~ '..C,,... ;l ~ .. ~ ·•...i ---' ... ~· 1.# .......
~~-..i-,
• • ,_. h .. ,...;
I "~\--' ~ .. ,._. ~,t.•~u i•h•w•,\. fl ~ -•· ! •·t,• •...,,: . 1 ~.,.,i· +.-,:~.'tr 1 ~•··t
.Ef~!"": '·, • • •• ,.,, .,, ', ••• ·-r'- •.• :t
:- -~,' .-:·; ... j-·
J.' .... • : .;.;:.,:, : - ~ ··• .: ,,. r'll.'· ..... :.~=::..-~~~ .... ) .....* . 'f,i-.Ji.t, ~' ... ,,rttrw .. ~··•.:_.,.,.. _..........., ..
._....,.._._,,_ .. ,~_ .. •.t·· ,·_,' •· # ....... ,•:··• ... -·_~-· .• ~.;·.
•.•·· ··--•~'-··.'
•·'' .. >-••·i ~H,.;'. :•. r•~'G•~t: •t~i)"j~:;.-•.:\~
.t;.•~·t:;-:,•-tt:.~---"'•:l''.-.t
0
..r•~••·:,. ·•~).1t',1!"11119\"';,. ~..,,,A~,rt-r,n ... ....,..~,-_- ~1••··/
-,~'..>~~'.;~/~:/~-<.~ '\~ .•·~··-·~·-.:.:·:i~:.; ... :.;:: __ ,-.~.,;~- -~. _:.,.. ~ ~ = •• ~~~
• • .. ·--~
• ' ' ►
.,_, ... ·-· •· • ..
::
!, • ,,.. .
4
·i~
~i-~~:-s~~~~
~ j ·~ • ..,,
'-,t :., ....... ~ .. '
:,~.,!'•~..:k"--~:~ ·-,~
•• .• :11r.1·~·••·
..... , f .-l.
-~- . ' .. ..:.·•
.,..:
... -~ ., .. " ..
:_-• -~"'"• I •• ~: ~
... ..... .....---.r-
....... ····- ...
---
... 1
~- ~=~?ih:: ·••.'-••···~·..,. :,· .. , .... ;; .... ,.•-·~-
::~.~~=~=-::=-~i~
~~,:7'°·A!~ ~---~-~- ~
'~ .. + .,. ' ..
. :· 6"~: ·:~""- -:::.?·: ~ ~~~·:: ~; '::
Note: Lm1tl1 should be bcrwcm 6-32 clw:ictcn I
OK
C111ccl I SoftKcyboard
,, 1·
--.;-~ · .. ~.
·• -~.• .:,...,
~ ! ,k...:..:: .. ~·:-==•~? .....
'• ..
-_;...."'.'..,;:-;.:,:... ~:..;...~~. ~
'-~~.-- ..
f.
On successful authentication, session will be created and
authenti~ation
is recorded in database.
~ mstcecommtrc,.convauctionhome/mstc/processlogon __ mkldsc__pki.jsp
www.mstcKommerct.com uys
Ctrtiliutt synchronized And Signed CNlltngt Succtssfully Verified
g.
Thereafter, bidder can
participate in live auction (Submission of Bid
amount).
~~ I: .... ..
;r~;:: • ... .-•:"'·•~~-~.fl ~ ·:1~~ .!.'~ t~r~~ ;vw:;~!::i.~~~ltt:rFr74"r!:r~~.~~ ~- ...
c• ~~:-~_(;;_.._.~.,._.~:::~~-?::-.~~~-~t.t.Lu~~';C;~l!2fi~~~!-
! -- "' -~ -~ MSTCrllMITEO.c4COvt.(lf,U,n1\lknm.111 • • • •· -C • "".t' ' .... - -,.-,••····:l,.;•"''":.''~':t"':": ·-::·-:: :.··~· ,'7-~- ••• ·- •. · • .• ,,·,· ·':'h ,-~
•~c.!_ • • :· .... , _... .• • <II • ., • t • -· , , . ' , • • . • - ... , ~ '-4;1 u :.-,.~ :l-!'.;~•0':t;t.·., --'C,~..; • ~~"-Y/r~
:·N .• .'\lllh:~~~
... :•
~ -
'
~.
-
0
*
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-14- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
..
...
;h.
During submission of bid amount, bidder has to authenticate the bid
submission amount
through registered DSC.
=
*
e
--
&-~~g~ I
I)
mst~ .auction
--
/i. On successful authentication, entered bid
amount is submitted in the
database.
,,_., ...... """.s.,,u,r ...,,. .......... , lvCttWW,
ITtN<l'l'lilc.MtMIMH
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-15- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
15. Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for respondent No. 2,
referring to the aforesaid process flow, emphatically submitted that the
process from Clauses (a) to (e) pertains to the bidder for the purpose of
login and that, once the PIN verification is completed, a session is
created and authentication is recorded in the database in terms of
Clause (f), following which the bidder can participate in the live auction
from Clause (g) onwards.
16. He submitted that the first half of the process, namely
Clauses (a) to (e), pertains to the bidder, whereas the second half of the
process, namely Clauses (f) to (i), pertains to respondent No. 2 –
MSTC. According to him, authentication is subject to successful PIN
verification at the bidder’s end and, therefore, unless the bidder
successfully verifies the PIN after selecting the registered DSC, the role
of respondent No. 2 under Clause (f) onwards does not commence.
17. The observations contained in Clause (5) of the aforesaid
report are also significant in substantiating the aforesaid contention.
The observations in Clause (5) read thus:
“5. Observations
5.1 Examination of MSTC e-Bidder Auction portal
CERT-In team interacted with the officers of M/s. MSTC and
visited the data center located in Kolkata for collection of relevant
logs/artifacts and source code of the auction portal. On
examination of the available logs/artifacts received from M/S
MSTC Ltd, the following observations are made:
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-16- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
a. The firewall logs indicate that all requests originating from M/s
Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd IP address 14.97.159.182 between
5:45:47 PM and 5:58:39 PM were permitted.
b. The Web Application Firewall (WAF) was operating in
monitoring mode and was configured to log (record) only for
blocked requests. The WAF logs indicate that the IP address
(14.97.159.182), used by M/s Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd to
th
access the portal, was not blocked by the WAF on 11 December
2025.
c. Application access logs indicate that the M/s. MSTC e-Bidding
portal remained continuously available during the auction period
th
on 11 December 2025.
d. As per database records available with M/s. MSTC, e-bidding
portal, the Login and DSC authentication of the bidder is as
follows:
i. Bidder M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd authenticated using the
user ID and password for the first time on 11.12.2025 at
10:39:08, and at 17:51:10 and afterwards repeatedly.
ii. That on 11.12.2025, two successful login sessions (User ID +
Password) and DSC authentication by M/s. Kundan Gold Mines
P. Ltd, the bidder was created first at 10:39:22 and subsequently
at 18:01:10 through IP address 14.97.159.182, using a laptop with
MAC ID C0-35-32-E7-E4-8D.
iii. DSC authentication records depict that the last successful
DSC authentication by the M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd, the
bidder occurred at 17:40:06, which was prior to the closure of the
auction at 17:54:23.”
18. On the basis of the aforesaid observations and upon
examination of the video evidence, the expert body furnished the root
cause analysis in Clause (6), which reads thus:
“6 Root Cause Analysis
a. Examination of Video evidence
On examination of the video provided by bidder, it appears that a
bid amount of 45.75 was entered, and the Bid button was clicked
to submit the bid during the e-bidding process. Upon clicking the
Bid button, a pop-up (1) appeared for DSC authentication. In the
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-17- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
DSC authentication window, the bidder selected the registered
certificate and clicked the OK button. After clicking OK, the PIN
verification window appeared. It is likely that the bidder
overlooked the PIN verification window, or it was inadvertently
minimized, as evidenced by the PIN verification icon visible or
appearing in the taskbar.
Due to the PIN verification window being in a wait state, the
bidder was unable to click on the bid amount field, and "Page
Unresponsive" alert was displayed.”
19. In Clause (v), the expert body recorded its final conclusion,
which reads thus:
“v. Therefore, it appears that bidder may have overlooked or
mistakenly PIN verification window was minimized. Icon of PIN
verification is visible in task bar of window. Due to wait condition
of PIN verification window, Bidder was unable to click on bid
amount field and "Page Unresponsive" alert appeared.”
20. Thus, a perusal of the root cause analysis so also the final
conclusion reveals that, if any fault is attributable for the failed login by
the petitioner, the same is attributable to the petitioner and not to the
server of respondent No. 2 where the e-auction process had taken place.
Thus, the submission of the petitioner that the technical glitch had
occurred at the end of the server of respondent No. 2 is unfounded in
view of the report of the expert body. It was the failure at the petitioner’s
end to log in that resulted in the petitioner not being able to furnish its
bid and, therefore, the non-submission of the bid by the petitioner is
not attributable to the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-18- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
21. Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that, on
26.03.2026, the petitioner had raised objections to the report of the
expert body. So far as the objections raised by the petitioner to the
report of the expert body are concerned, the said objections require
technical knowledge for proper appreciation thereof, and we are of the
considered opinion that, in such a situation where a clear finding has
been recorded by the experts in their report, the Court would ordinarily
rely upon the opinion of the experts.
22. Since the challenge involved in the present petition, so also
the subsequent objections raised by the petitioner to the report of the
expert body, require technical knowledge of a high order, this Court
would be slow in interfering with the findings recorded by the expert
body. Even otherwise, examination of the aforesaid objections raised by
the petitioner would not be possible in view of the specific findings
recorded by the expert body in Clause 5.2 of the report, which reveal
that the cache and browsing history pertaining to 11.12.2025, i.e., the
date of the e-bidding, were not available on the laptop used by the
petitioner in the e-bidding auction process.
23. Clause 5.2(c) specifically points out that even the logs were
not available on the laptop used for e-bidding and that the non-
availability of the logs was not automatic, thereby confirming that the
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-19- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
security logs had been manually cleared. This fact speaks volumes about
the conduct of the petitioner, who has not approached this Court with
clean hands while alleging a technical glitch against respondent No. 2.
The relevant clauses of the report read thus:
“5.2 Examination of Laptop used during e Bidding Auction
CERT-In team interacted with the employees of M/s. Kundan
Gold Mines P. Ltd. and examined the available logs/artifacts
received from M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd and following
observations are made:
a. The laptop used in e-bidding auction process has been found
to have a high-end configuration and the MSTC e-bidding portal
was accessed through WiFi access points.
th
b. The cache and browsing history for 11 December 2025, the
day of e-bidding were not available.
c. Event logs were not available in the laptop used for e-bidding.
The non- availability of logs is not automatic as it has generated
Event ID 1102 in Windows, which confirms that the Security log
was cleared manually. The log-clearing activity was carried out
under the user account 'Muskan,' rather than by the SYSTEM
account or via a scheduled task. Consequently, previous log
entries are no longer available for examination.”
24. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that,
in the facts of the present case, we have no option but to go by the
report of the experts and, in holding so, we are supported by the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jindal Steel and Power
Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others [2023 SCC OnLine
Del 4401], wherein it was held that the issue raised in the petition was
highly technical in nature and, therefore, no adjudication in proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was permissible.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-20- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jagdish
Mandal Vs. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517], has held that judicial
review of administrative action has been devised to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically laid down that, while exercising
the power of judicial review, the Constitutional Courts should first pose
themselves to the questions as mentioned therein. If the answers to the
aforesaid questions are in the negative, there should be no interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 22 of Jagdish
Mandal (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and
mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is
made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is
"sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters
relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features
should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction.
Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially
commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay
at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona
fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power
of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error
in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power
of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect
private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide
contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance
can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride
and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and
persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review,
should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may
hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to
thousands and millions and may increase the project cost
manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-21- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should
pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the
authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and
irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with
relevant law could have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference
under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of
penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of
State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences,
dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they
may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
26. In the case of Adani Global Air Cargo Solutions Private
Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C)
No.15983/2024, decided on 18.03.2025), the Delhi High Court has
observed in paragraphs 54 and 55 as under:
“54. The scope of judicial review of such administrative decisions
is restricted. We consider it apposite to refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC
651. The Supreme Court had summarized the principles
governing the scope of judicial review as under:-
"(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews
the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision
is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the
necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-22- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to
judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of
contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or
award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through
several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made
qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other
words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only
be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but
must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by
mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden
on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted
expenditure."
55. In the present case, we are unable to accept that the bidding
process falls foul of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India or
is vitiated on the ground of bias. The petitioner's challenge to the
bidding process also fails the Wednesbury test of
unreasonableness.”
27. The view enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Tata Cellular (supra) has been consistently followed. In the case of
Deep Blue Xpress Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [2023
SCC OnLine Del 5493], the Delhi High Court has observed in
paragraph 16 as under:
“16. It is well settled that the scope of interference by a High
Court in matters of tender, while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is extremely narrow. The
Court ought not to interfere in such matters unless it is
established that the process adopted by the decision-making
authority is mala fide, intended to favour someone, arbitrary or
irrational. In case the decision-making process is just, fair and
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-23- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
reasonable, the writ courts must loathe to interfere with the award
of contracts by the State/Instrumentalities of the State. [See: Tata
Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16
SCC 818; Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India,
(2020) 16 SCC 489; and Agmatel India (P) Ltd. v. Resoursys
Telecom, (2022) 5 SCC 362].”
28. Thus, in compliance of the consistent view taken by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the specific findings of
the expert body that the fault for the failed login is attributable to the
petitioner and not to the server of respondent No. 2 where the
e-auction process had taken place, and since the petitioner has failed to
point out any material to establish that a technical glitch had occurred at
the end of the server of respondent No.2, we are of the considered
opinion that the challenge raised in the present writ petition is devoid of
merit and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
29. This Court, in paragraph 10 of the order dated 05.02.2026,
had specifically directed that the charges for the initial expert evaluation
shall be borne by respondent No. 2 and that, after receipt of the report
from the expert body, if no fault is found in the system of respondent
No. 2, as alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner shall reimburse the
said amount to respondent No. 2. The expert body has now recorded a
specific finding that no fault was found in the system of respondent
No. 2.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::

-24- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
30. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) We direct the petitioner to reimburse to respondent No. 2
the amount incurred by it for obtaining the expert report, within a
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the statement of
expenditure.
(iii) Respondent No. 2 shall furnish to the petitioner the
statement of expenditure along with the relevant receipts within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.
(iv) Rule is discharged accordingly. No order as to costs.
31. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks
extension of the interim relief for a period of two weeks.
32. The said request is strongly opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective respondents.
33. This being a tender matter, and considering the findings
recorded in the judgment, we are not inclined to accede to the said
request. Accordingly, the request stands rejected.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Vijaykumar
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 17:21:13 :::