Facts
The Petitioner, a mining company, participated in an e-auction conducted by Respondent No. 2 (MSTC Ltd) on behalf of Respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) for a composite license for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block
Source reference: p. 2-3During the second round of bidding on 11.12.2025, the Petitioner alleged that a "technical glitch" at 05:47 PM prevented them from submitting a revised final bid of 45.75%, resulting in Respondent No. 3 being declared the preferred bidder
Source reference: p. 8-9The Petitioner challenged the notice dated 12.12.2025 declaring Respondent No. 3 the winner and sought a resumption of the auction
Source reference: p. 2Per a court order dated 05.02.2026, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) was appointed as an expert body to investigate the alleged glitch
Source reference: p. 10-11Issues
1. Whether the failure to submit the bid was caused by a technical glitch in Respondent No. 2’s portal or by user error at the Petitioner's end.
Source reference: p. 11 / para. 132. Whether the Court should interfere in a commercial tender process under Article 226 when technical expert findings contradict allegations of systemic failure.
Source reference: p. 19-20 / para. 24-25Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of judicial restraint in administrative action as established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, noting that courts lack the expertise to correct specialized administrative decisions
Source reference: p. 21-22It relied on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, which holds that judicial review in tender matters is limited to checking for arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality, rather than the "soundness" of the decision
Source reference: p. 20-21furthermore, it followed Jindal Steel and Power Limited v. Union of India, which cautions against exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters involving highly technical adjudications
Source reference: p. 19Reasoning
The Court analyzed the CERT-In report, which utilized firewall logs, Web Application Firewall (WAF) records, and database artifacts to determine that the MSTC portal remained continuously available throughout the auction
Source reference: p. 16The Expert's "Root Cause Analysis" revealed that the Petitioner likely overlooked or minimized a PIN verification pop-up window required for DSC authentication, putting the session in a "wait state" and causing the "Page Unresponsive" alert
Source reference: p. 16-17The Court noted that the Petitioner had manually cleared security event logs and browsing history from the laptop used for bidding, suggesting an attempt to obscure the facts
Source reference: p. 18-19This conduct, combined with the expert finding that the fault was attributable solely to the Petitioner's end and not the server, led the Court to conclude there was no arbitrariness or systemic failure warranting interference
Source reference: p. 17, 19Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner failed to establish a technical glitch at the Respondent’s end
The Court answered the issues by stating that the failed login was attributable to the Petitioner and thus the tender process was not vitiated by irrationality or mala fides
Source reference: p. 17, 23The Petitioner was ordered to reimburse Respondent No. 2 for the costs incurred in obtaining the CERT-In expert report within three weeks. Interim relief was refused and the rule was discharged
Source reference: p. 24Original Court PDF
Kundan Gold Mines Private Limited, Thr. Authorized Representative, Gaurav DuavsState Of Maharashtra, Thr. Director General, Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Nagpur And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in