Bombay High Court
Kundan Gold Mines Private Limited, Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Director ... on 6 May, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
-1- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8249 OF 2025
PETITIONER : Kundan Gold Mines Private Limited,
through its Authorized Representative
Shri Gaurav Dua, Mining Head, Aged
about 50 Years, having Registered
Office at Plot No. 205, Sector-4,
Phase-H, Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Director General, Directorate of
Geology and Mining N.S. Building,
East Wing, 1st Floor, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. MSTC Limited having its Registered
Office at Plot No. CF-18/2, Street
No.75, Action Area 1C, New Town,
Kolkata, 700156
Also at: West Regional Office
607-608 Raheja Centre, Nariman
Point, Mumbai - 400021.
3. Auro Infra Private Limited, Galaxy
Towers, 21st Floor, Wing A, Plot No.1,
Sy No. 83/1, Opp. Ikea Hyderabad
Knowledge City, TSIIC Raidurg,
Panmaktha, Hitec City, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500081.
__________________________________________________________
Mr. J.T. Gilda, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A.J. Gilda, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. H.D. Dangre, Advocate with Mr. Sarabjeet Singh Saddal,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Akshay A. Naik, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Y.N. Sambre and
Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
__________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-2- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 6th MAY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
Heard Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. A.J. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.S. Rao, learned AGP for respondent No.1/State, Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Akshay A. Naik, learned Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Y.N. Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking challenge to the impugned notice dated 12.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 - Director General, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of Maharashtra, Nagpur, declaring respondent No. 3 as the preferred bidder for grant of a composite licence in respect of the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 to resume the second round of the e-auction process for grant of the composite licence for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block from the stage at which it was allegedly interrupted on 11.12.2025 on account of technical glitches, i.e., from 5:47 p.m. on 11.12.2025. ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-3- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
4. Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to fully and effectively participate in the second round of the e-auction conducted by respondent No. 1 through the online portal owned/developed by respondent No. 2, on account of a technical glitch in the said portal during the auction process. According to him, the glitch prevented the petitioner from making an upward revision in its final price offer within the eight-minute window available under the auction process. It was submitted that, despite clicking the "BID" button, the portal remained unresponsive and failed to accept the petitioner's revised final price offer due to the said technical glitch. As a result thereof, the revised offer of the petitioner could not be submitted, whereas the final price offer submitted by respondent No. 3 came to be accepted, and respondent No. 3 was consequently declared the preferred bidder for grant of the composite licence for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block vide the impugned notice dated 12.12.2025.
5. Respondent No. 1 issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 25.07.2025 inviting electronic bids for grant of mining leases in respect of two limestone blocks and grant of composite licences in respect of seven mineral blocks, comprising one block of copper, one block of copper and associated minerals, one block of gold associated with silver, lead and copper, and four blocks of iron ore. The bidders were required ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-4- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt to register themselves on the website/portal of respondent No. 2, namely MSTC Limited.
6. The Tender Document prescribed the following compliances to be fulfilled by the bidders and laid down the following procedure for the e-auction:
(i) In the first round of the e-auction, the bidders were required to submit their technical bids comprising, inter alia, documentary evidence establishing their eligibility under the Tender Document, the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder to participate in the auction, along with bid security and such other documents and payments as may be specified in the Tender Document under Clause 5. The bidders were also required to submit an initial price offer, being a percentage of the Value of Mineral Despatched, which was required to be equal to or greater than the reserve price of 2.5% as specified in Clause 9 of the Tender Document. The same was to be submitted electronically, and the technical bid was also required to be physically delivered to the officials of respondent No. 1.
(ii) Thereafter, where the total number of technically qualified bidders was three or more, the auction process was to proceed to the second round of auction, wherein the qualified bidders were required to submit their final price offers, being a percentage of the Value of ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-5- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt Mineral Despatched ("Final Price Offer"), which was required to be higher than the floor price.
7. Since the principal dispute pertains to the alleged technical glitch during the e-auction process conducted by respondent No. 2 in the second round of the e-auction, it would be relevant to refer to the procedure prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 25.07.2025, which is at record at page No. 35 (Annexure-P1). The relevant portion, namely clause (b) of Schedule III pertaining to the technical details regarding the online electronic auction, reads thus:
b. Stage 2: Electronic Auction - Final Price Offer a. Intimation to Qualified Bidders Along with the above intimation, the Bidder shall also receive information regarding applicable Floor Price for second round of e-auction of the mineral block which is the highest initial price offer received from the Technically Qualified Bidders. It is expressly clarified that Bidders should not expect to receive the information on the second highest IPO received from the Technically Qualified Bidders as a matter of usual course.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the Bidder to regularly check the MSTC website and log in to see whether it has qualified for a certain mineral block or not. MSTC will not be responsible for non-receipt of email by the Bidder and its consequences. b. Conduct of e-auction E-auction is the process of inviting binding Final Price Offer(s) from Qualified Bidders through internet for the purpose of determination of the Preferred Bidder. During this process, the Qualified Bidder will be able to submit its Final Price Offer as many times as it wishes against the same mineral block. The Qualified Bidder will remain anonymous to other Qualified ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-6- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt Bidders participating in the electronic auction process as well as to MSTC / State Government. The Qualified Bidder will be able to see the prevailing highest Final Price Offer against the mineral block, but the name of the highest Qualified Bidder at any point of time will not be displayed. The Qualified Bidder shall have to put its Final Price Offer over and above the displayed highest bid by a minimum increment of 0.05% to become the highest Qualified -Bidder. The electronic auction process will have a scheduled start and close time which will be displayed on screen. A Qualified Bidder will be able to put its Final Price Offer after the start of bid time and till the close time of electronic auction. The current server time (IST) will also be displayed on the screen. In the event a Final Price Offer is received during the last 8 (Eight) minutes before the scheduled close time of electronic auction, the close time of electronic auction will be automatically extended by 8 (Eight) minutes from the last received bid time to give equal opportunity to all other Qualified Bidders. This process of auto extension will continue till no Final Price Offer is received during a period of 8 (Eight) minutes.
For example, assuming that the initial scheduled close time for a particular electronic auction is 1:00 pm and a Final Price Offer is received at 12:55 pm, the scheduled close time shall be revised to 1:03 pm. Again if a Final Price Offer is received at 1:01 pm, the scheduled close time shall be revised to 1:09 pm and so on. In the event that no further Final Price Offer is received till 1:09 pm, the electronic auction will close at 1:09 pm. The revised close time will be displayed on screen and the Qualified Bidders are advised to keep refreshing its webpage to get the latest information.
The above example is only illustrative and meant for explaining the e-auction process only.
During the process of electronic auction, the Bidder shall be required to sign their bids with their respective Class III Signing and Encryption Combo digital signature certificate (DSC) and the use of which has been duly authorised on behalf of the Bidder and which was used at the time of registration. Any digital signature certificate other than the above shall not be acceptable for bid submission by the system Bidders may use 'Bidder's Guide' link available on login page for the detailed procedure. Bidders in their own interest are advised to get themselves acquainted with the electronic auction process of auction platform provider by getting their Authorized ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-7- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt Representative trained beforehand through some demo electronic auctions as per Clause 11.
Digital Signature Certificate A Bidder shall be required to possess a valid Class III Signing and Encryption Combo Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of signing and encryption combo type to be able to submit its Bid and to participate in the electronic auction on MSTC website. For this purpose, Bidders shall be required to authorize its Authorized Signatory to procure a class III DSC of signing and encryption combo type from any Certifying Authority or their authorized agencies in India.
The Bidder may note that only one user id will be mapped with a given Class III Signing and Encryption Combo DSC for the Authorized Signatory. DSC once mapped with a particular user id of a Bidder will normally not be changed and therefore Bidders are advised to carefully select the DSC.
The Class III Signing and Encryption Combo Digital Signature Certificate will be used to digitally sign the Bids that the Bidder will submit online.
It will be the sole responsibility of the Bidder and its respective Authorized Signatory to maintain the secrecy of the password for the Digital Signature Certificate. The Bidder and its Authorized Signatory shall be solely responsible for any misuse of the DSC and no complain / representation in this regard shall be entertained at any stage by MSTC/State Government."
8. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid procedure prescribed under the Tender Document indicates that, during the process of e-auction, the bidders were required to sign their bids using their respective Digital Signature Certificates. The use of such Digital Signature Certificate was required to be duly authorized on behalf of the bidder, and only upon such login could further bidding be undertaken by the bidder. ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-8- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
9. Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, has principally argued that it was only on account of a technical glitch in the system/portal of respondent No. 2, where the bidding process was conducted, that the petitioner's further bid could not be submitted; otherwise, the petitioner would have been the successful bidder. Mr. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, invited our attention to the specific pleadings in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition pointing out the sequence of events relating to the alleged glitch, which read thus:
"9. However, the following events unfolded on the date for submission of bids:
i. At 11:00 PM, the Petitioner logged into the MSTC portal to participate in the second round of e-auction to submit i'ts Final Price Offer. The floor price for the e-auction was set at 5.10 percent as per Clause 8.1 (A) (d) of the Tender Document. ii. The Petitioner, along with other Qualified Bidders was engaged in the e-auction till around 05:45 PM. The Final Price offer submitted by the Petitioner at that time was 45.55 percent. iii. At around 05:46 PM, Respondent No. 3 made a bid of 45.65 percent on the MSTC portal.
iv. At 05:47 PM, the Petitioner wanted to increase the Final Price Offer and tried to submit it's Final Price Offer of 45.75 percent on the MSTC portal.
v. However, at 5:47 PM as soon as the Petitioner clicked on the 'BID' button, the website / portal stopped working (hanged) and showed that the page was unresponsive.
vi. The Applicant made immediate efforts to refresh, reload, and regain access to the bidding interface; however, despite repeated attempts, the system did not resume normal functioning.
vii. Due to this, the Petitioner was not able to submit it's revised final price offer and the prescribed bidding window elapsed.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-9- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
10. Immediately after the Petitioner was unable to submit it's revised final price offer due to the technical glitch on the website / portal, the Petitioner vide email dated 11.12.2025 at 06:11 PM informed the Respondent No. 1 that the Respondent No. 2's website / portal had glitched during the e-auction process and also attached a video showing that the website / portal was unresponsive as proof to the said email."
10. Per contra, Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 - MSTC Limited, submitted that it is only the present petitioner who has approached this Court alleging such a technical glitch. There were several other bidders who had participated in the aforesaid e-auction conducted by respondent No. 2, including the successful bidder, i.e., respondent No. 3, and none of the bidders had approached this Court with any complaint regarding any technical glitch. He, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of any ground to be entertained.
11. When this Court heard the present petition on merits on 05.02.2026, Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, relied upon the interim order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 8347/2025, so also the order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the Principal Seat of this Court at Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 10131/2024 and other connected matters, in order to substantiate the contention that the issue arising in the present writ petition is highly technical in nature. He, therefore, requested this Court to refer the issue ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-10- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt involved in the present writ petition to an expert body in order to ascertain whether the technical glitch alleged by the petitioner had, in fact, occurred or not.
12. Since all the parties to the present writ petition acceded to the aforesaid request, this Court, on 05.02.2026, passed the following order:
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that because of technical glitch, it could not submit its bid. According to him, in similar matters, the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court have appointed an expert to look into the issue and asked to submit the report.
3. We find substance in the submissions of Shri Gilda, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since this Court does not possess expertise in the field, which is relating to the Computer Science, it would be appropriate to appoint an expert so that the expert to look into the grievances of the petitioner and submit its report.
4. Shri Dangre, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submits a list of such expert agencies.
5. With the consent of parties, we are of the opinion that the issue shall be referred to the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which is the national nodal agency under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, operational since 2004.
6. Accordingly, we request the Director General, CERT at Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, to look into the issue as involved in the present petition relating to the alleged technical glitch at the end of the respondent no.2 and submit a report within 10 days from today.
7. The respondent no.2 undertakes to communicate this order to the Director General, CERT, New Delhi. In addition, the petitioner shall also communicate this order to the CERT.::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-11- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
8. If the petitioner wants to submit any submissions before the CERT, New Delhi, it shall submit the same through e-mail or by visiting the office of the CERT.
9. The CERT if deems it necessary to visit the Office of the petitioner to inspect the System, it may do so.
10. Charges in this regard initially shall be borne by the respondent no.2 and after receiving the report from CERT, New Delhi, if no fault is found in the system of the respondent no.2, as alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner shall reimburse the said amount to the respondent no.2.
11. The Director General of CERT is requested to submit the report in the matter, to the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, within 10 days from today.
12. The Registry shall also communicate this order to the CERT, New Delhi.
13. Interim order to continue till then.
14. Place this matter on 16.02.2026 for further consideration."
13. Thus, the Director General, CERT, New Delhi, was requested to examine the issue involved in the present writ petition relating to the alleged technical glitch at the end of respondent No. 2 and to submit a report. Accordingly, the expert body, CERT, vide communication dated 09.03.2026 addressed to the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, submitted its report.
14. A perusal of the aforesaid detailed report submitted by CERT, particularly Clause 4.3 thereof, sets out the detailed procedure for e-bidding, which reads thus:
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
4.2 Pre-requisite for accessing thee-Bidding Auction Portal For Bidding in MLCL, Critical Minerals
-12- and Exploration Licenses on MSTC ~
906.WP.8249.2025.odt Portal, prospective bidders shall require Class 3 Signing and Encryption type Digital Signature Certificates issued by licensed Certifying Authorities (CAs) recognized by the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) under the Information Technology Act, 2000 in the name of their Authorized Signatory.
4. 3 Process flow for e-Bidding a. Select Login as Bidder b. Enter User id and Password c. Select State and click on Login button d. System asked for authentication through registered DSC (Digital Signature Certificate) ~ -; X !; mstcecommerce.com/auctionhome/mstc/processlogon_mkldsc_pki.jsp ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-13- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt e. On selecting registered DSC, PIN verification window appears for further authentication.
I~ :; mst~ommerct.corn/auctionhome/mstc/processlogon_mlcldsc_pkl.j,p .... f4t .... --...i..-.-- -~ . - ....~ ........... _____ __._.-,I,.-·-· ..
. , • . . ,-i., ►• ·,,,..,; • • . . •.;.. ... --.·,
•:.;JJ' ·~J,Jt ~ '..C,,... ~~-..i-, ;l ~ .. ~ ·•...i ---'... ~· 1.# .......
• • ,_. h .. ,...;
I "~\--' ~..,._. ~,t.•~u i•h•w•,\. fl ~ -•· ! •·t,• •...,,: . 1 ~.,.,i· +.-,:~.'tr 1.Ef~!"": '·, • •
•• ,.,, .,, ', ••• ~•··t ·-r'- •.• :t
J.' .... • : .;.;:.,:, : - ~ ··• .: ,,. r'll.'*· ..... :.~=::..-~~~ ....) ..... . 'f,i-.Ji.t, ~' ...,,rttrw.. ~··•.:_.,.,.. _..........., ..
._....,.._._,,_..,~_..•.t··
:- -~,' . - : · ; ... j - ·
,·_,' •· •.•·· ··--•~'-··.' # .......,•:··• . . . - · _ ~ - ·.• ~.;·.
•·'' .. >-••·i ~H,.;'. :•. r•~'G•~t: •t~i)"j~:;.-•.:\~ .t;.•~·t:;-:,•-tt:.~---"'•:l''.-.t ..r•~••·:,. ·•~).1t',1!"11119\"';,. ~..,,,A~,rt-r,n. .....,..~,-_- ~1••··/ 0
-,~'..>~~'.;~/~:/~-<.~ '\~ .•·~··-·~·-.:.:·:i~:.;...:.;::_ ,-.~.,;~- -~. _:.,.. • •~ ~ .. ·- ~ = •• ~~~ • ' ' ► :: .,_, ... ·-· •· •.. ~ j ·~ • ..,, !, • , . '-,t :., ....... ~ ..' ~i-~~:-s~~~~ ····- ---
.......
·i~ 4
...
.
...1
:,~.,!'•~..:k"--~:~ ·-,~
•• .• :11r.1·~·••·
..... , -~- f . ' .-l. .. ..:.·•
~-~=~?ih:: :,·. : ~.~~=~=-::=-~i~
.,..:... - ~ .,.. " ..
'~ .. + .,. ' .. :_-• -~"'"• I •• ~: ~
Note: Lm1tl1 should be bcrwcm 6-32 clw:ictcn I .. ..... .....---.r-
.:· 6"~: ·:~""- -:::.?·: ~~~~·:: ~;'::
·••.'-••···~·..,. , .... ;;.... ,.•-·~-
~~,:7'°·A!~ ~---~-~- ~
--.;-~ ·.. ~.
,, 1·
·• -~.• ~ .:,..., ! ,k...:..::..~·:-==•~?..... OK C111ccl ISoftKcyboard
'• ..
'-~~.-- -_;...."'.'..,;:-;.:,:... .. ~:..;...~~. ~
f. On successful authentication, session will be created and authenti~ation is recorded in database.
~ mstcecommtrc,.convauctionhome/mstc/processlogon__mkldsc__pki.jsp www.mstcKommerct.com uys Ctrtiliutt synchronized And Signed CNlltngt Succtssfully Verified g. Thereafter, bidder can participate in live auction (Submission of Bid amount).
* 0
- - -~
~
• •
~.- '
;r~;::•... ~~ .-•:"'·•~~-~.fl
• •·
~ ·:1~~.!.'~ t~r~~ ;vw:;~!::i.~~~ltt:rFr74"r!:r~~.~~ ~-...~~:-~_(;;_.._.~.,._.~:::~~-?::-.~~~-~t.t.Lu~~';C;~l!2fi~~~!- •~c.!_ • • :· .... , _...
-C . .:• • I: .... ..
! "' -~ MSTCrllMITEO.c4COvt.(lf,U,n1\lknm.111 c• "".t' ' .... - -,.-,••····:l,.;•"''":.''~':t"':": ·-::·-:: :.··~· ,'7-~- ••• ·- •. · • .• ,,·,· ·':'h ,-~
-
.• • <II •., • t • - · , , . ' , • • . • - . . . , ~ '-4;1 u
:l-!'.;~•0':t;t.·., ~~"-Y/r~
:.-,.~ :·N .• --'C,~..; • .'\lllh:~~~
Page 6 of 27
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-14- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
.
. .;h. During submission of bid amount, bidder has to authenticate the bid submission amount through registered DSC.
*e=
-- &-~~g~ mst~ .auction I) I
--
/i. On successful authentication, entered bid amount is submitted in the database.
,,_., ...... """.s.,,u,r ...,,..........., lvCttWW, ITtN<l'l'lilc.MtMIMH ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-15- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
15. Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, referring to the aforesaid process flow, emphatically submitted that the process from Clauses (a) to (e) pertains to the bidder for the purpose of login and that, once the PIN verification is completed, a session is created and authentication is recorded in the database in terms of Clause (f), following which the bidder can participate in the live auction from Clause (g) onwards.
16. He submitted that the first half of the process, namely Clauses (a) to (e), pertains to the bidder, whereas the second half of the process, namely Clauses (f) to (i), pertains to respondent No. 2 - MSTC. According to him, authentication is subject to successful PIN verification at the bidder's end and, therefore, unless the bidder successfully verifies the PIN after selecting the registered DSC, the role of respondent No. 2 under Clause (f) onwards does not commence.
17. The observations contained in Clause (5) of the aforesaid report are also significant in substantiating the aforesaid contention. The observations in Clause (5) read thus:
"5. Observations 5.1 Examination of MSTC e-Bidder Auction portal CERT-In team interacted with the officers of M/s. MSTC and visited the data center located in Kolkata for collection of relevant logs/artifacts and source code of the auction portal. On examination of the available logs/artifacts received from M/S MSTC Ltd, the following observations are made:::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-16- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt a. The firewall logs indicate that all requests originating from M/s Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd IP address 14.97.159.182 between 5:45:47 PM and 5:58:39 PM were permitted.
b. The Web Application Firewall (WAF) was operating in monitoring mode and was configured to log (record) only for blocked requests. The WAF logs indicate that the IP address (14.97.159.182), used by M/s Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd to access the portal, was not blocked by the WAF on 11th December 2025.
c. Application access logs indicate that the M/s. MSTC e-Bidding portal remained continuously available during the auction period on 11th December 2025.
d. As per database records available with M/s. MSTC, e-bidding portal, the Login and DSC authentication of the bidder is as follows:
i. Bidder M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd authenticated using the user ID and password for the first time on 11.12.2025 at 10:39:08, and at 17:51:10 and afterwards repeatedly. ii. That on 11.12.2025, two successful login sessions (User ID + Password) and DSC authentication by M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd, the bidder was created first at 10:39:22 and subsequently at 18:01:10 through IP address 14.97.159.182, using a laptop with MAC ID C0-35-32-E7-E4-8D.
iii. DSC authentication records depict that the last successful DSC authentication by the M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd, the bidder occurred at 17:40:06, which was prior to the closure of the auction at 17:54:23."
18. On the basis of the aforesaid observations and upon examination of the video evidence, the expert body furnished the root cause analysis in Clause (6), which reads thus:
"6 Root Cause Analysis a. Examination of Video evidence On examination of the video provided by bidder, it appears that a bid amount of 45.75 was entered, and the Bid button was clicked to submit the bid during the e-bidding process. Upon clicking the Bid button, a pop-up (1) appeared for DSC authentication. In the ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-17- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt DSC authentication window, the bidder selected the registered certificate and clicked the OK button. After clicking OK, the PIN verification window appeared. It is likely that the bidder overlooked the PIN verification window, or it was inadvertently minimized, as evidenced by the PIN verification icon visible or appearing in the taskbar.
Due to the PIN verification window being in a wait state, the bidder was unable to click on the bid amount field, and "Page Unresponsive" alert was displayed."
19. In Clause (v), the expert body recorded its final conclusion, which reads thus:
"v. Therefore, it appears that bidder may have overlooked or mistakenly PIN verification window was minimized. Icon of PIN verification is visible in task bar of window. Due to wait condition of PIN verification window, Bidder was unable to click on bid amount field and "Page Unresponsive" alert appeared."
20. Thus, a perusal of the root cause analysis so also the final conclusion reveals that, if any fault is attributable for the failed login by the petitioner, the same is attributable to the petitioner and not to the server of respondent No. 2 where the e-auction process had taken place. Thus, the submission of the petitioner that the technical glitch had occurred at the end of the server of respondent No. 2 is unfounded in view of the report of the expert body. It was the failure at the petitioner's end to log in that resulted in the petitioner not being able to furnish its bid and, therefore, the non-submission of the bid by the petitioner is not attributable to the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-18- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
21. Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that, on 26.03.2026, the petitioner had raised objections to the report of the expert body. So far as the objections raised by the petitioner to the report of the expert body are concerned, the said objections require technical knowledge for proper appreciation thereof, and we are of the considered opinion that, in such a situation where a clear finding has been recorded by the experts in their report, the Court would ordinarily rely upon the opinion of the experts.
22. Since the challenge involved in the present petition, so also the subsequent objections raised by the petitioner to the report of the expert body, require technical knowledge of a high order, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings recorded by the expert body. Even otherwise, examination of the aforesaid objections raised by the petitioner would not be possible in view of the specific findings recorded by the expert body in Clause 5.2 of the report, which reveal that the cache and browsing history pertaining to 11.12.2025, i.e., the date of the e-bidding, were not available on the laptop used by the petitioner in the e-bidding auction process.
23. Clause 5.2(c) specifically points out that even the logs were not available on the laptop used for e-bidding and that the non- availability of the logs was not automatic, thereby confirming that the ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-19- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt security logs had been manually cleared. This fact speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner, who has not approached this Court with clean hands while alleging a technical glitch against respondent No. 2. The relevant clauses of the report read thus:
"5.2 Examination of Laptop used during e Bidding Auction CERT-In team interacted with the employees of M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd. and examined the available logs/artifacts received from M/s. Kundan Gold Mines P. Ltd and following observations are made:
a. The laptop used in e-bidding auction process has been found to have a high-end configuration and the MSTC e-bidding portal was accessed through WiFi access points.
b. The cache and browsing history for 11th December 2025, the day of e-bidding were not available.
c. Event logs were not available in the laptop used for e-bidding. The non- availability of logs is not automatic as it has generated Event ID 1102 in Windows, which confirms that the Security log was cleared manually. The log-clearing activity was carried out under the user account 'Muskan,' rather than by the SYSTEM account or via a scheduled task. Consequently, previous log entries are no longer available for examination."
24. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the facts of the present case, we have no option but to go by the report of the experts and, in holding so, we are supported by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jindal Steel and Power Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others [2023 SCC OnLine Del 4401], wherein it was held that the issue raised in the petition was highly technical in nature and, therefore, no adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was permissible. ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-20- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517] , has held that judicial review of administrative action has been devised to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically laid down that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the Constitutional Courts should first pose themselves to the questions as mentioned therein. If the answers to the aforesaid questions are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 22 of Jagdish Mandal (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-21- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
26. In the case of Adani Global Air Cargo Solutions Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No.15983/2024, decided on 18.03.2025), the Delhi High Court has observed in paragraphs 54 and 55 as under:
"54. The scope of judicial review of such administrative decisions is restricted. We consider it apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC
651. The Supreme Court had summarized the principles governing the scope of judicial review as under:-
"(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-22- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
55. In the present case, we are unable to accept that the bidding process falls foul of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India or is vitiated on the ground of bias. The petitioner's challenge to the bidding process also fails the Wednesbury test of unreasonableness."
27. The view enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tata Cellular (supra) has been consistently followed. In the case of Deep Blue Xpress Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [2023 SCC OnLine Del 5493], the Delhi High Court has observed in paragraph 16 as under:
"16. It is well settled that the scope of interference by a High Court in matters of tender, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is extremely narrow. The Court ought not to interfere in such matters unless it is established that the process adopted by the decision-making authority is mala fide, intended to favour someone, arbitrary or irrational. In case the decision-making process is just, fair and ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-23- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt reasonable, the writ courts must loathe to interfere with the award of contracts by the State/Instrumentalities of the State. [See: Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489; and Agmatel India (P) Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, (2022) 5 SCC 362]."
28. Thus, in compliance of the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the specific findings of the expert body that the fault for the failed login is attributable to the petitioner and not to the server of respondent No. 2 where the e-auction process had taken place, and since the petitioner has failed to point out any material to establish that a technical glitch had occurred at the end of the server of respondent No.2, we are of the considered opinion that the challenge raised in the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
29. This Court, in paragraph 10 of the order dated 05.02.2026, had specifically directed that the charges for the initial expert evaluation shall be borne by respondent No. 2 and that, after receipt of the report from the expert body, if no fault is found in the system of respondent No. 2, as alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner shall reimburse the said amount to respondent No. 2. The expert body has now recorded a specific finding that no fault was found in the system of respondent No. 2.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::
-24- 906.WP.8249.2025.odt
30. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) We direct the petitioner to reimburse to respondent No. 2 the amount incurred by it for obtaining the expert report, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the statement of expenditure.
(iii) Respondent No. 2 shall furnish to the petitioner the statement of expenditure along with the relevant receipts within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.
(iv) Rule is discharged accordingly. No order as to costs.
31. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks extension of the interim relief for a period of two weeks.
32. The said request is strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.
33. This being a tender matter, and considering the findings recorded in the judgment, we are not inclined to accede to the said request. Accordingly, the request stands rejected.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Vijaykumar
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:00:24 :::