CENTURY INFRA LIMITED AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Court
Calcutta High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 14531 of 2026

Century Infra Limited & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.


Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Deepan Sarkar
Mr. Yash Singh
Mr. Jishnujit Roy
Mr. Shourya Samanta
Mr. Devesh Bose
....For the petitioners.

Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Snehashis Sen
Mr. Abhishek Banerjee
….For the respondent no. 2.

Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Krishna Raj Thaker, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta

2

Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain
….For the respondent no. 4.

Hearing Concluded On : 29.06.2026
Judgment Delivered On : 29.06.2026
Judgment Uploaded On : 30.06.2026
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. This is the second round of litigation of the same e-tender notice for “land
inside CME Compound at 8, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata, being plot no.
130/25(A), on long term lease of 30 years, on “as is where is basis” ,
without renewal option, against payment on annual rent/ upfront basis
th
dated 5 November, 2025.


2. On the earlier occasion, the private respondent no. 4 had filed a writ
petition being WPA No. 7776 of 2026 (City Mall Vikash Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs.
The Union of India & Ors.) praying for a direction upon the respondents to
permit the respondent no. 4 herein and other bidders to participate in the
abovementioned tender from the stage of bidding as at 10.40 p.m.

rd
3. This Court by a judgment dated 23 April, 2026, dismissed the writ
rd
petition. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23 April, 2026, the
private respondent preferred an appeal being MAT No. 857 of 2026 and
the Hon’ble Appellate Court had disposed of the said appeal by holding
that the Appellate Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed

3

by this Court as this Court has already held that it is upto the Port Trust
to decide the issue raised by the respondent no. 4, it is for the Port Trust
to decide the fate of the bidding process in accordance with law and
inform the fate of such decision to the respective parties.

4. After the order passed by the Appellate Court, the respondent no. 3 has
issued the impugned communication informing that the respondent
th
authorities have decided to continue the e-auction held on 26 March,
2026 by conducting an extended e-auction amongst the techno-
commercially qualified bidders as per the following parameters:

Proposed leased Area : 44,790 square meter.

Reserved/ Base Price for the extended e-auction :
Rs. 4,72,67,214/- per annum (excluding taxes) and
requested to participate in the extended e-auction
th
scheduled to be held on 29 June, 2026 at 12.00
P.M. through MSTC e-auction portal.

5. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners
submits that the Port Trust illegally and arbitrarily has decided to
th
continue the e-auction held on 26 March, 2026 by conducting an
extended e-auction though the e-auction process which was already
th
completed on 26 March, 2026 wherein the petitioners are the highest
bidder.

6. Mr. Mitra submits that it is the admitted case of the private respondent
th
no. 4 that on 26 March, 2026, on the date of e-auction, the private

4

respondent no. 4 could not participate in the e-tender process at 10:40
rd
P.M. and this Court by the judgment dated 23 April, 2026, has also held
that the private respondent no. 4 failed to utilize the four minutes from
22:45 hours to 22:49 hours and thus the respondents cannot claim to be
allowed to participate in the bid process from the stage of bidding at 10:40
hours.


7. Mr. Mitra submits that the Hon’ble Appellate Court has not interfered with
rd
the judgment passed by this Court dated 23 April, 2026, and only the
Appellate Court held that it is upto the Port Trust to decide the fate of the
bidding process in accordance with law and inform the fate of such
decision to the respective parties. He submits that the Port Trust
authorities had only two options either to accept the tender of the
petitioners by issuing work order or to cancel the tender but the Port
Trust Authorities by ignoring the findings of this Court in the judgment
rd
dated 23 April, 2026, wherein this Court has categorically held that the
respondents have accepted the bid amount from the petitioners herein
and it is upon the Port Trust authorities to issue allotment order to the
petitioners or to take further decision to cancel the tender process if the
authorities find it difficult to accept the bid amount of the petitioners
herein.

rd
8. Mr. Mitra submits that after the judgment passed by this Court dated 23
th
April, 2026, the Port Trust authorities by an email dated 29 May, 2026,

5

informed the petitioners that subsequent to the consent of the petitioners,
the revision of the area of the subject plot, the annual rent quoted by the
petitioners in the e-auction has been worked out on a proportionate basis
at a rate of Rs. 4,72,67,214/- per annum excluding the applicable taxes
and as per the request of the Port Trust authorities, the petitioners by an
nd
email dated 2 June, 2026, has confirmed the annual rent amounting to
Rs. 4,72,67,214/- but instead of issuance of the work order, the Port
Trust authorities had issued the impugned communication by extending
the e-auction by fixing the reserve price of Rs. 4,72,67,214/- per annum.

9. Mr. Mitra in support of his submission, has relied upon the judgment in
the case of Sorath Builders vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited & Anr.
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 9 and submits that where bidders who fulfil
pre-qualification alone are invited to bid, adherence to the instructions
cannot be given a go-by by branding it as pedantic approach, otherwise it
will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and
favouritism which are totally opposed to the rule of law and our
constitutional values.


10. Mr. Mitra has relied upon the judgment in the case of Abhay Kumar
Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC)
14 and submits that changes in the eligibility criteria and procedure after
initiation of the recruitment process, is well settled as the rules of the

6

game i.e. the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities
concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.

11. Mr. Mitra has relied upon the judgment in the case of Golden Food
Products India vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 24 and submits that if a valid bid has been made which
is above the reserve price there should be a rationale or reason for not
accepting it. The decision to discard the highest bid must have a nexus to
the rationale or the reason.

12. Mr. Kishore Dutta, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Port Trust
authorities submits that the Hon’ble Appellate Court by the order dated
th
8 June, 2026, has passed an order by giving liberty to the Port Trust to
decide the fate of the bidding process in accordance with law and inform
such decision to the respective parties and accordingly, the authorities
th
have taken the decision to continue the e-auction held on 26 March,
2026 by conducting an extended e-auction amongst the techno-
commercially qualified bidders.


13. Mr. Dutta submits that as per sub-clause (h) of Clause 5 of the tender
document provides that SMP, Kolkata, reserves the right to cancel or
reject or accept or withdraw or extend the tender in full or part as the case
may be, without assigning any reason thereof and thus in terms of the

7

said clause, the authorities had taken the decision to extend the e-auction
amongst the techno-commercially qualified bidders.

14. Mr. Dutta submits that in the previous writ petition, it was the specific
case of the Port Trust Authorities that the private respondent no. 4 unable
to participate in the live e-auction bid after 10:40 hours and if the private
respondent is intending to pay the higher bid amount then the Port Trust
authorities will consider the same in accordance with law. He submits that
taking into consideration of the said aspect, the Port Trust authorities by
fixing the basic price of Rs. 4,72,67,214/-, decided to conducting an
th
extended e-auction held on 26 March, 2026, amongst the techno-
commercially qualified bidders i.e. the petitioner no. 1 and the private
respondent.

15. Mr. Dutta submits that in the previous writ petition, the issue whether the
respondent can extend the period for conducting e-auction in terms of
sub-clause (h) of Clause 5 is not decided either by this Court or by the
Appellate Court. As per the decision taken by the Port Trust authorities,
the petitioners will also get an opportunity to quote its bid amount.


16. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Krishna
Raj Thaker, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent no. 4
rd
submits that even after the judgement passed by this Court dated 23
April, 2026, the Port Trust authorities has not closed the tender and
th
further communication was made with the petitioners and again on 29

8

May, 2026, the rate quoted by the petitioners was reviewed and the bid
amount quoted by the petitioners was enhanced from Rs. 4,57,28,982/- to
Rs. 4,72,67,214/-.

17. Mr. Basu submits that the Hon’ble Appellate Court has given liberty to the
Port Trust authorities to take decision and to communicate the same to
the parties and accordingly the respondent authorities have taken
decision by allowing both the parties to participate in the extended e-
auction with the revised base price of Rs. 4,72,67,214/-, thus the
petitioners will also get an opportunity to quote its price in the extended e-
auction process.

18. Mr. Basu submits that the Port Trust authorities have passed the order in
accordance with sub clause (h) of Clause 5 of the tender document which
provides extension. Mr. Basu submits that in the earlier round of litigation
this Court has not decided whether the Port Trust authorities can extend
the period of e-auction. He submits that the petitioners by a letter dated
th
25 June, 2026, admitted that the petitioners will participate in extended
e-auction process and thus the petitioners cannot challenge the same
after admission.

19. Mr. Basu submits that this is a commercial contract and the Port Trust
authorities will be commercially benefited if the parties are allowed to
participate in the extended e-auction process.

9

20. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the
materials on record and the judgments relied by the petitioners. The only
th
issue whether the impugned communication dated 24 June, 2026,
issued by the respondent no.3 by extending the e-auction process is
sustainable under law.

th
21. As per the tender notice dated 5 November, 2025, the last date and time
of submission of offline Techno-Commercial Bid and price bid through
online and submission of hard copies of MOA into the specified box was
th
till 5:00 P.M. on 5 December, 2025. The e-auction process was started
th
on 26 March, 2026 from 12:00 noon through MSTC e-auction portal.
Both the petitioners and the private respondent have participated in the
live bidding process. During live bidding process through online mode at
10:40 P.M., the computer system of the private respondent suffers
technical glitch and the private respondent was automatically logged out
of the MSTC e-auction portal and the private respondent unable to
participate in the remaining portion of live bidding process. The petitioners
at 22:41:34 hours have quoted the bid amount of Rs. 4,45,10,628/-.


22. The respondent no.3 filed writ petition being WPA No. 7776 of 2026
praying for the following reliefs:

“ a. A writ and/or in nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to permit the
petitioner no. 1 company to participate in the said

10

tender auction being NIT No. SMP/KDS/LND/131-
2025 dated November 5, 2025;

b. A writ and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to conduct a fresh auction between
the petitioner no. 1 company and the other bidder
from the stage of the bidding as at 10:40 pm;

c. A writ and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents not to take any steps in the
auction without conducting the fresh bidding
between the petitioner no. 1 company and the other
bidder from the stage of the bidding as at 10:40
pm;

d. A writ and/or in nature of Prohibition, from closing
the auction process;

e. A writ and/or in nature of certiorari do issue calling
upon the respondents and their agents to certify
and transmit the records in connection with the
said auction being NIT No. SMP/KDS/LND/131-
2025 dated November 5, 2025, so that
conscionable justice may be rendered;

f. Any other writs and/or orders and/or directions for
granting complete justice and remedy;

g. Rule NISI in terms of the prayers above;

h. Interim and Ad – Interim order(s) in terms of
prayers above;

i. Such further or other order and/or orders be
passed, direction and/or directions be given as
your Lordships may seem fit and proper.”


rd
23. This Court by a judgment dated 23 April, 2026, dismissed the writ
petition holding that:
“ 16. It is admitted by the petitioners that
suddenly around 10.40 P.M. after almost 10 hours
40 minutes of active participation by the

11

petitioners, the petitioners’ computer system
suffered a technical glitch. Clause 16 of General
Information to the bidders provides that neither
SMP, Kolkata nor MSTC shall be responsible for
any problem at the bidders’ end like failure of
electricity, disruption of internet connection, any
trouble with bidder’s PC etc., which may cause
inconvenience or prevent the bidder from bidding in
the e-tender-cum-e-auction.

17. As per the bid history produced by the
respondent no. 2, it reveals that the private
respondent has participated in the last bid at
22:41:34 and put the bid amount of Rs.
44,51,0628/-. The respondent no. 2 also produced
th
the e-mail dated 30 March, 2026 wherein it
reveals that at 22:40 hours to 22:45 hours, the
petitioners could not participate in the e-auction
process due to computer glitch in the computer of
the petitioners. The private respondent has quoted
his final bid amount at 22:41:34 hours. The system
of the petitioners restored at 22:45 hours and the
bidding window remain open for about 4 minutes
but even after the restoration of the connection of
the petitioners at 22:45 hours, the petitioners have
not placed their bid amount during this four
minutes and accordingly at 22:49:34 hours, the
respondent no. 2 officially closed the e-bidding
process.

20. This Court finds that it is the admitted
case of the petitioners that the computer system of
the petitioners suffered technical glitch at 10.40
hours due to which the petitioners could not
participate in the further e-bid process but from the
report submitted by the respondent no. 2, it reveals
that at 22:45 hours, the system of the petitioners
restored and the petitioners got the four minutes
time to participate in the bid by putting the bid
amount but the petitioners have not utilized the
said four minutes and accordingly, 22:49:34 hours,
the respondent no. 2 officially closed the auction.
Clause 16 of the tender document also specified
that neither the respondent no. 2 nor the
respondent no. 3 shall be responsible for any
problem at the bidder’s end like failure of

12

electricity, disruption of internet connection, any
trouble with bidders PC etc., which may cause
inconvenience to prevent the bidders from bidding
in the e-tender of e-auction, thus this Court is of the
view that there is no fault on the part of the
respondents, accordingly, the issue no. 1 is decided
against the petitioners.

21. As regard to the issue no. 2, Clause 23 of
the tender document provides that after finalization
of the tender through e-tender or e-auction, the
allotment letters will be made to the successful
bidders by hard copy, and successful bidders shall
be required to formally accept the terms and
conditions of the allotment of the lease and remit
requisite advance annual rent. The respondents
have accepted the bid amount. It is upon the
respondent no. 3 to issue allotment order to the
private respondent or to take any further decision
to cancel the tender process if the authorities found
any difficulty to accept the bid amount of the
private respondent. Mere the allotment letter is not
issued to the private respondent, will not create
any right upon the petitioners to participate in the
tender process from the stage at 10.40 p.m. on
th
26 March, 2026 along with other bidders, which is
already closed at 22:49:34 hours.

22. The petitioners have admitted that due to
technical glitch in the computer of the petitioners,
the petitioners could not participate in the e-tender
process after 10:40 hours but this Court has
already held that the petitioners failed to utilize the
four minutes from 22:45 to 22:49 hours, thus the
petitioners cannot claim that if the work order is not
issued, the petitioners can be allowed to further
participate in the bid process from the stage of the
bidding at 10:40 p.m.

23. Considering the above, this Court did not
find any merit in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, WPA No. 7776 of 2026 is
dismissed . No order as to costs.”

13

rd
24. Being aggrieved with the judgment date 23 April, 2026, the respondent
no.4 filed appeal being MAT No. 857 of 2026 and the Hon’ble Appellate
Court has disposed of the appeal by passing the following order:
“ 1) We are not inclined to interfere with the
order of His Lordship.

2) The writ Court could not have interfered
with the bidding process once it was over as it was
not within the domain of the writ Court to decide
whether the appellants should be allowed to re-
bid/bid afresh on account of any technical glitch
which the appellants may have faced. Admittedly,
the technical glitch, if at all, was at the end of the
appellants and not on the part of the MSTC Ltd.,
that is, the platform which held the process on
behalf of the Port Trust. His Lordship had rightly
left it open to the Port Trust to take a decision
whether to proceed on the bid received or not. The
auction was held in respect of a land belonging to
the Port Trust.

3) Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate submits
that a representation has been filed before the port
authorities by the appellants and the same may be
directed to be considered.

4) As His Lordship has already held that it is
upto the Port Trust to decide the issue raised by the
appellants, it is for the Port Trust to decide the fate
of the bidding process in accordance with law and
inform the fate of such decision to the respective
parties. The decision of the Port Trust will reach the
parties expeditiously. The question of hearing being
granted to the parties does not arise. The
representation is already before the Port Trust.

5) Accordingly, the appeal and the connected
application are disposed of.”

14

25. The case of the Port Trust authorities is that in terms of the order passed
by the Hon’ble Appellate Court and taking into consideration of sub-clause
(h) of Clause 5 of the tender document, has issued the impugned
th
communication on 24 June, 2026, by extending the e-auction schedule
amongst the techno-commercially qualified bidders for the proposed area
th
44.790 sq. mtrs. on the base price of Rs. 4,72,67,214/- on 29 June,
2026, at 12.00 P.M. through the MSTC e-auction portal. Sub-clause (h) of
Clause 5 of the tender document reads as follows:
“ 5(h) SMP, Kolkata reserves the right to cancel
or reject or accept or withdraw or extend the tender
in full or part, as the case may be, without
assigning any reason thereof.”


rd
26. By the judgment dated 23 April, 2026 in WPA No. 7776 of 2026, this
Court held that the respondent no.4 admitted that due to technical glitch
in its computer, the respondent no.4 could not participated in e-tender
process after 10:40 P.M. but at 10:45 P.M (22.45 hours), the connection
was restored and bidding window was remain open for over 4 minutes i.e.
up till 22:49:34 hours but the respondent no.4 has not placed any bid
amount during the said four minutes when the bidding process was on till
22:49:34 hours.

27. The Port Trust authorities have taken the shelter of Sub-Clause (h) of
Clause 5, the word “or to extend the tender”. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 5
reads as follows:

15

“ 5(b) After the closing time of event has
passed, no bid will be accepted by the system.
Hence, bidders are advised to make final
submission of their bids well within time.”


28. Clause 12 of the evaluation criteria of the tender document reads as
follows:
“ 12. The scheduled closing time of e-auction shall
be automatically extended, in case a techno-
commercially qualified bidder submits a bid within eight
minutes of scheduled closing time of e-auction. For
example, if the scheduled closing time is at 17.00 hrs
and a bid is submitted at 16.54 hrs, the e-auction will
not be close at 17.00 hrs but would be extended till
17.02 hrs, closing time for e-auction shall be extended
till 17.09 hrs. This extension will go on till no bid is
received for eight whole minutes.”


29. To extend a tender means to officially change a procurement deadline or
process. This generally refers to two scenarios : extending the bid
submission deadline or extending the validity period . In the present case,
in the first round of litigation, the respondent no.4 requested the
respondent authorities to permit the respondent no.4 to participate in the
e-tender auction from the stage of bidding as at 10:40 PM. In the said
proceeding, it was the specific case of the MSTC, the respondent no.5
herein that in the absence of any technical glitch at the side of the MSTC,
the respondent no.4 cannot claim any benefit for allowing the respondent
no.4 to participate in the said tender any further, and the said
submissions of the respondent no.5 supported by the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Housing

16

Development Authority Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 13 .

30. If the submissions of Mr. Dutta and Mr. Basu is taken into consideration
that the Port Trust authorities have extended the e-auction period on the
basis of sub-clause (h) of Clause 5 of the tender document, then it would
amount to change of view of the MSTC who has conducted online auction
rd
and ignoring the findings of the judgment passed by this Court dated 23
April, 2026.

rd
31. After the judgment passed by this Court dated 23 April, 2026, the Port
Trust authorities have further negotiated with the petitioners and revised
the total area of the land from 48,258 Sq. Mtrs. to 44,790 Sq. Mtrs. and
the amount from Rs. 4,45,10,628/- to Rs. 4,72,67,214/-. In the
th
communication dated 29 May, 2026, the Port Trust authorities have
requested the petitioners to confirm its unconditional acceptance of
allotment of the revised plot at the revised annual rent with extra taxes
within 5 days from the receipt of the said proposal. The petitioners by a
nd
communication dated 2 June, 2026, confirmed the same. The Hon’ble
Appellate Court has taken up the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4
th
herein on 8 June, 2026 but the Port Trust authorities have not brought
the said fact before the Hon’ble Appellate Court.

rd
32. This Court by the judgement dated 23 April, 2026, held that it is upon
the Port Trust authorities to issue allotment order to the petitioners or to

17

take any further decision to cancel the tender process if the authorities
find any difficulties to accept the bid amount of the petitioner herein. The
said findings of this Court were duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Appellate
Court.

33. The Port Trust authorities have now taken contrary view by extending the
e-auction amongst the techno-commercially qualified bidders by altering
the proposed leased area and base price from the original tender. It is the
settled law that the authorities cannot change the rules of the game in the
middle or after the process has commenced.

rd
34. By the judgment dated 23 April, 2026, this Court already dismissed the
prayer of the respondent no. 4 for conducting a fresh auction between the
petitioner and the respondent no. 4 as at 10:40 P.M. Now the Port Trust
authorities indirectly by avoiding the judgment of this Court allowing the
private respondent no. 4 to participate in the same tender process.

35. In view of the above, this Court finds it is difficult to accept the decision
th
taken by the Port Trust authorities by a communication dated 24 June,
2026 by conducting an extended e-auction process amongst the techno-
commercially qualified bidders. The decision taken by the Port Trust
th
authorities dated 24 June, 2026, is set aside and quashed. The Port
Trust authorities are directed to take appropriate decision in terms of the
rd
judgment dated 23 April, 2026, passed by this Court and the order
th
passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Court dated 8 June, 2026.

18


36. WPA No. 14531 of 2026 is allowed .
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the
Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)