2025 (3) TMI 1579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shweta Bharti, Mr. Rohit Jolly and Mr. Raghav Sachdev, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam and Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocates for R-3/IPPB. JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:- "a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconduct the Reverse Auction in E-Tender Id GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/ SMS Banking for Delivery of SMS for IPPB (Under Opex Model); b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner whatsoever, to the E-Tender Id GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/ SMS Banking for Delivery of SMS for IPPB (under Opex Model); g. pass ad-interim ex-parte orders; and. h. Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the present case." CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:- 2. Mr. Jayant Mehta and Mr. Shashank Garg, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner had bid for the Tender floated by the respondent no.2/Government E-marketPlace (hereinafter referred as "GeM") for selection of bidder to provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/SMS banking for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rther submitted, the action/inaction of respondent nos. 2 and 3 is evident from petitioner's various emails sent immediately after the issue arose, vide which the petitioner again and again informed respondent nos. 2 and 3 regarding the technical glitches being faced by the petitioner while modifying the value or submitting its bid. He further submitted that it came as a shock when petitioner's ticket was unilaterally closed by the respondent no. 2/GeM on 27.12.2024 without any effective resolution. Subsequently, petitioner made another attempt towards resolution by immediately issuing a representation to the respondent no.3/IPPB reiterating its grievance and requested respondent No.3 to not release the award in favour of L1 bidder without ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....similar glitch. However, no such default or glitch was reported by respondent no.4. According to the learned counsel, the logs of record also did not indicate any such default or technical glitch at the end of the GeM portal which is the reason why the ticket generated by the petitioner was finally closed. 7. That apart, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/GeM also contended that unless the petitioner quotes and fills a price lower than that already quoted by the respondent no.4 during the Reverse Auction process, in the fields provided, the question of "submit button" accepting its bid does not arise. In support he drew attention to material on record to indicate that the petitioner attempted to fill the previous bid figure, which ....