Tendering Authority Is Not Responsible for Technical Glitches Occurring at the Bidder's End During E-Auction Processes.

The Petitioner participated in a tender auction (NIT No. SMP/KDS/LND/131-2025) issued by Respondent No. 3 for a 30-year lease of land in Kolkata.

During the live e-auction on March 26, 2026, the Petitioner’s computer system suffered a technical glitch at approximately 10:40 PM, causing them to be logged out.

The Petitioner alleged that this malfunction prevented them from submitting higher bids despite having the financial capacity.

However, records from MSTC (Respondent No. 2) indicated that while the Petitioner stopped bidding at 10:38:15 PM, their connection was restored at 10:45 PM. The bidding window remained open for an additional four minutes until 10:49:34 PM, during which the Petitioner failed to place any further bids.

Respondent No. 4 emerged as the highest bidder.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are responsible for a technical glitch occurring at the bidder's end during an e-auction process.

2. Whether the petitioners can be permitted to re-participate in the bidding process from the stage of the glitch if the tender has not yet been finalized via an allotment letter.

Clause 16 of the General Information to Bidders, which stipulates that the tendering authority (SMP/MSTC) is not responsible for hardware, software, or internet connectivity failures at the bidder's end.

In Maharashtra Housing Development Authority v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was held that providing a "second opportunity" to a bidder due to their own technical failures is impermissible in the absence of a portal-side glitch.

A bidder’s willingness to pay more post-auction does not justify setting aside results if the e-portal functioned correctly, as established in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. v. Union of India and Deep Blue Xpress Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The Court reasoned that the auction's integrity depended on the functionality of the MSTC portal, not the individual bidder’s infrastructure. Since the Petitioner admitted the glitch occurred on their own computer system and the MSTC records proved the portal was operational, the authorities could not be held liable.

The Court noted a critical factual finding: the Petitioner's system was restored at 10:45 PM, yet they remained inactive for the final four minutes of the auction window. Consequently, the Petitioner's failure to utilize the restored window negated any claim for equitable relief.

The Court further observed that allowing a restart would unfairly prejudice the rights of the highest bidder (Respondent No. 4) who had already complied with the tender requirements.

The mere fact that an allotment letter had not been issued did not grant the Petitioner a right to re-open a concluded bidding process. The writ petition was dismissed.