Public procuring authorities must accommodate bona fide bidders excluded by acknowledged portal glitches.

NTPC floated four simultaneous GeM tenders dated 6 June 2026 for procurement of 5,00,000 metric tonnes of domestic coal each for its Gadarwara, Solapur, Kudgi and Khargone Thermal Power Projects.

The original bid-submission deadline of 29 June 2026 was extended to 6 July 2026 at 11:00 a.m., and the bid conditions provided that the techno-commercial bids for all four stations would be opened simultaneously.

On 6 July 2026, the petitioner attempted repeatedly to access and submit its bids through the GeM portal, but was unable to do so because of intermittent technical problems.

It lodged complaints with GeM and NTPC, enclosing screenshots and screen recordings, and had already submitted the bid security of ₹4 crore and the power of attorney on 4 July 2026.

GeM acknowledged that technical issues had affected the portal from 9:00 a.m. on 6 July 2026 and displayed a ticker extending certain affected bids and reverse auctions until 8 July 2026.

GeM nevertheless contended that responsibility for timely submission rested on the bidder, and that approximately 29 bidders had successfully submitted bids across the four tenders.

NTPC opposed relief, relying on the petitioner’s alleged failure to submit its bids earlier, the participation of other bidders, the urgency arising from declining coal stocks, and precedents concerning unsuccessful allegations of portal malfunction.

At the time of hearing, only the technical bids had been opened and the financial bids remained unopened.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to submit its bids by the prescribed deadline was attributable to an acknowledged technical glitch in the GeM portal rather than to any default or lack of diligence on its part.

Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court could direct GeM/NTPC to permit the petitioner to submit its bids notwithstanding expiry of the original deadline.

What relief, if any, would appropriately balance the petitioner’s right to fair participation with the public interest in expeditious coal procurement.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles of fairness, transparency, equal opportunity and maximum participation governing public procurement by State instrumentalities and public enterprises.

It relied on Vishwa Traders & Anr. v. Government E-Marketplace (GeM) through its Dy. CEO & Anr., W.P.(C) 11785/2021, which held that a bidder should not suffer for a technical defect in the GeM system and that the portal must possess sufficient flexibility to permit exceptional intervention where a participant is excluded through no fault of its own.

The Court distinguished Jindal Steel and Power Limited v. Union of India, Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited v. Union of India and Agravanshi Private Limited v. State of Goa, since those cases involved failures to establish any systemic portal malfunction or circumstances attributable to the tendering authority.

The governing rule was that an acknowledged technical failure of an electronic procurement platform, when promptly reported and not attributable to the bidder, cannot be used to unfairly exclude a ready and otherwise eligible participant from a public tender.

The Court found that the petitioner’s login attempts between 10:17 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. were unsuccessful, that it repeatedly contacted the respondents contemporaneously, and that GeM’s own records acknowledged intermittent technical glitches beginning at 9:00 a.m.

The fact that 29 bidders succeeded did not disprove the petitioner’s case because GeM’s Deputy CEO stated that the portal was functioning intermittently, and the successful bidders may have accessed it during periods when it was operational.

Further, approximately 544 enquiries concerning glitches or login problems had been received by GeM, corroborating that other users were similarly affected.

The petitioner’s prior submission of the bid security and power of attorney demonstrated bona fide intention and preparedness to participate.

Since GeM had itself acknowledged the malfunction and the financial bids had not yet been opened, permitting the petitioner to submit its bids would not cause procedural prejudice and would advance fair competition.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner’s exclusion resulted from circumstances beyond its control and warranted corrective relief under Article 226, notwithstanding the urgency of NTPC’s coal requirements.

The Court held that the petitioner could not be prejudiced by the acknowledged technical glitches on the GeM portal and was entitled to an opportunity to submit its bids.

GeM was directed to open the portal on 5 August 2026 and communicate the opening to the petitioner, provide a new login ID, and keep the portal open until 5:00 p.m. on 6 August 2026.

If reopening the portal was technically infeasible, GeM was directed to inform the petitioner by 5:00 p.m. on 5 August 2026, whereupon the petitioner could submit its bid documents in a sealed physical cover to the Deputy CEO, GeM, by 5:00 p.m. on 6 August 2026.

Thereafter, NTPC was directed to process the petitioner’s bid in accordance with the applicable RFP.

The petitions and pending applications were disposed of without costs.