Reverse auction e-procurement bid challenged over alleged technical glitch and lost opportunity; request for re-auction rejected

The dominant issue was whether the HC should exercise Art. 226 jurisdiction to direct re-conduct of a reverse auction and invalidate the award on the ground of an alleged technical glitch causing loss of opportunity. The HC held that the controversy was predominantly technical and fact-intensive, requiring evaluation of electronic records, system logs, and other technical evidence, which cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated on affidavits in writ proceedings and lies outside the institutional competence and limited scope of a writ court; absence of pleaded mala fides against the e-procurement platform or its officials further militated against interference. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, could adjudicate the petitioner's grievance that it was prevented from participating effectively in the reverse auction due to an alleged "technical glitch" on the e-portal, and consequently grant directions to reconduct/cancel the tender and restrain implementation of the award.

(ii) Whether the nature of the controversy-turning on disputed technical facts, portal logs, and electronic evidence-rendered the writ petition non-maintainable/unsuitable for determination on affidavits, particularly in the absence of any pleaded mala fides against the portal authority or its officials.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i) & (ii): Maintainability and adjudicability of the "technical glitch" tender dispute under Article 226

Legal framework: The Court proceeded on the basis of the limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, specifically that such jurisdiction is not suited for resolution of disputes requiring evaluation of contested facts and detailed technical/electronic material on the basis of affidavits alone.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that the petitioner's case depended entirely on establishing that the reverse auction portal became unresponsive and prevented submission/modification of bids. Given the "highly technical" nature of the allegation, the Court had earlier sought an independent expert assessment through an expert committee. The expert committee's conclusion did not provide definitive support to either side, stating there was no conclusive evidence to confidently affirm portal unresponsiveness or to declare the petitioner's claim false. The Court treated this inconclusive outcome as reinforcing that the controversy was factual and technical, requiring scrutiny of records, logs, and electronic evidence. The Court held that such an exercise is not within the proper domain or scope of a writ court and could not be satisfactorily adjudicated "on mere affidavits." The Court additionally noted that no mala fides were alleged against the portal authority or its officials, which further weighed against writ intervention in the tender outcome based on an unresolved technical-factual dispute.

Conclusions: The Court held that, in these circumstances, the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the request to reconduct the reverse auction/bidding process, cancel the tender, and restrain effect to the award was not granted, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---