Mis. SRVS lndustries v. Power Grid Corporation of lndia Limited

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that.in the circumstances stated in the'affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 30/06/2025 in lA No. 112025 in WP No. 1838312025 for the reasons aforementioned- lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under order lR 10 CPC r/w Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead M/s Sri Lakshmi Constructions, represented by Nadhella Ravikumar S/o Radhakrishna aged about 39 yrs., Occupation Authorised Representative of the Proposed Respondent Number 3, Olo A 2, Ground Floor, 1st Cross, Vidya Nagar, Davanagete, Karnalaka-S77004. Alternatively residing at 62, Ramacamp, Roudakunda Post, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur, Karnataka-S84128 as Respondent Number 3 in lA.No.'1 of 2025 in WP No. 18383/2025 for the reasons aforementioned. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI VALLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI THOMAS GEORGE The Court made the following: ORDER a t a t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 18383 oF 2o/2s ORDER: respon se to This V/rit Petition is f-rled in respondents' refusal to consider petitioner's request to conduct e-Reverse Auct.ion (e RA) process afresh following an alleged technical glitch. Thr: petitioner also seeks to have e-RA llrocess conducted on 24.06.2025 for construction of roads ancl drains at Kurnool-3 Pooling Station, under Tender Specifical.ron No' SR-l/C&M/wC 4o7812025/RFx-5002o04275 (SR11NTiW- CIVILi DOM/BOO I 2r I 02433), declared void and' consequently' to direct the respondents to re-conduct the e-RA process' PetitiorLer, a partnership Iirm registered under the 2. Indian Partnerslrip Act, 1932 specializes in civil consl ruction projects, constrtlction ol OFC projects and manufacturing of mechanical colnFronents for the Ministry of Defence' Governme nt of Inlia. Respondent No 1, is a public sector undertaking ol the Government of India and holds the position of the largest p()wer t#.nsmission licensee in the country' On 10.03.2025, Respondent No. 1 issued an invitation-for bid (lFB) uid,e Specificatic,n No. SR-l/C&M/WC-aO78l20'25lRFx- soo2oo427s (SI?1/NTiW-CIVIL/DoM/Bool2sl02433) for * construction of ro:rds ernd drains at Kurnool-3 Pooling Station' { 1 I 2 Bidding was to be conducted through domestic competltlve bidding procedures, subject to qualifying requirements' utitizing a 'single Stage Two Envelope Bidding' procedure' Petitioner applied for tender by submitting the 2.1. required documents. After successful completion o[ Single Stage was declared as the Two Envelope Biding procedure, petltloner clause 29 of the Lowest Evaluated Bidder' According to instructions-to bidders (lTB) issued by e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) would be conducted i[ variation o[ the iespondents, I t. lowestevaluatedbidder,spricewaslessthanorequal16+$%,of the Indicative Estimated Cost for e RA This e-RA vyould include allthebidderswhoseevaluatedpricefellwithintherangeof5To o[ the evaluated price of the X1 bidder and was also less than or equal to +Soh of the Indicative Estimated Cost for e-RA' petitioner, along with t\ ''o other Pursuant to these guidelines, V. Mohan ReddY and the 3rd competitive bidders named A respondent - Sri Lakshmi Constructions' were deemed eligible for e RA. Petitioner, as the Lowest Evaluated Bidder' w'as scheduled to participate in e RA on 24 06'2025 at I1:OO AM'' slated to last for 120 minutes, with an auto extension of 20 minutes if a bidder piaced a price lower than the prevaiiing L1 bidder by at least the specihed decrement' This extension would t -) continue until there was no change in the prevailing L1 price within the finai 2l minutcs.

2.2. Petitioner participated in e RA on 24.06.2025, which began .rt i 1:OO AM. Both the petitioner anrl another competitive bidder rvcre actively placing bids. However, at approximately 2:{)9 PM, petitioner encountered a technical issue on respondents' e-RA portal; server became unresponsive and the portal disl;layed an error message stating "No support for Jaua APPLET!//". This technical glitch prevented petitioner from continuing its pzLrticipation in the auction. Immediately after the technical 1ssue, petitioner attempted to contact ERP SRM helpdesk support, but the calls went unanswered. They then informed officials from the office of Respondent No. 2 about the issue and on ther samc day, they personally visited their ofhce and submitted representation dated 24.06.2025 and requested re-conduction of e-RA process. However, respondents have not taken any steps. Petit:oner was denied a meaningful opportunity to

2.3. participate in tl-re final and crucial phase of e-RA due to circumstances beyond its control, thereby depriving it of the right to carrJ' on its 1awfu1 business and trade, which is violation of Article t9(t)(g) of the Constitution zrnd it is discriminaton and fails the test of reasonableness under Article { t I , 4 l4 of the Constilution. Having been declared L1 in the previous stage and having qualified for e-RA, petitioner had a legitimate expectalion of a fair, transparent and technoiogically-stable bidding process, which has been frustrated' The petitioner has su[fered grave and irreparable prejudice, as had the technical issue nol occurred, petitioner, who was actively participatinS and already declared L1, could have submitted further bids and potentially rvon the auclion ' Petitioner also states that awarding contract in 2,.4. favour of a single tenderer, in this case' undermines transparency and competitiveness mandated by pukrlic procurement law and defeats the very purpose of conducting reverseauction.Thisprocess,reducedtoame,reformality,isa travesty of established norms and is not in the best interest of the State or the exchequer' Petitioner further contends that if respondents proceed with awarding tender based on e-RA process that was abruptly concluded on 24'06'2025' it would be unjusl, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles la' 19(1)(g)' and 2O oftheConstitutionoflndia.Petitionerallegesthatrespondents are likely to proceed with finalizing tendering process and may irnminently issue Letter of Intent (LoI) and enter into an agreement with the purported successful bidder' which would render the present writ petition infructuous' t.

3. Sir-rce petitroner had already made represr.ntation on 24.06.2025 u'hich r.,.as rcceived by ths 2na respondent, this Court by order da,erl 30.06.2025 granted stay of a1l further proceedings to the extent of finalising tenders for one week and the said order w,zLs,:xtended from time to time and is in fbrce tiil pronouncement of judgment.

4. In the counter liled on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated, they a.-e engaged in establishment of the National Pou,er Grid and tLave an cxlensive network of power sub- stations across the country. In their process of expansion, they had floated a Notlc(r Inviting Tender: WC:4078 for Construction of Roads and Drains at 765 kv Kurnool-Ill Pooling Station. Petitioner participilted in e-tender for this work against Specification No. SR-1/C&M,WC 4O7B/2025 RFx No.5002004275 on "PRANIT Portal" on 1O.O3.2025. trnvelope-1 of the trids \r,-as opened on 20 .O3.2025; following the techno/ commercial cvaluation, price bids were opened on 1l .06.2025. E-RA was subsequently carried out betwe en petitioner and M/s Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Davernagere, starting at 11:00 hours on 24.06.2025.

4.1. Thrs res;pondcnts assert that petitioner cannot have a grievance against them because they did not follou, 'pre t { { t \-,*"- - 6 Requisite system setting' stipulated for e-RA. e-RA Bidder Manual, which was shared wilh bidders before the auction, clearly stated that it was a pre-requisite to use "Microsoft E<lge in Internet Explorer mode" while participating. The screenshot provided by petitioner shows that it was using 'Microsoft Edge brou.tser urithout the lnternet Explorer mode', wlnich is a clear violation of the stipulated settings. A detailed analysis of the system logs by the CC-ERP department is attached in the matcrial papers to support this claim. The system log report aiso indicates that petitioner used services of two internet service providers or two computers to submit its bids. The Bid Trail Report shows that the other bidder submitted its last bid at 13:5O:50 Hours, after which auction was auto-extended up to 14:20:00 Hours, providing petitioner about 30 minutes to submit a counter bid. This demonstrates that there was a fair opportunity for petitioner to continue its participation. 4 .2 . I t is pointed out that the screenshot submitted by petitioner shows the system time as 14:3O hrs. on 24.06.2025, which is after completion of e-RA at I4:2O hrs. This, accordrng to respondents, clearly indicates petitioner's motive to mislead this Court by attributing its own wrongful actions to I, respondents. Respondents claim that petitioner, fully aware of its own errors, is shifting the blame to e-RA system in an 7 1 attempt to restart the entire process Petitioner is not a new participant in their Lenders and e-RA processes and part.icipated in several such lerLders in the past and is currently executing various works for them Therefore' they are lhoroughly urware of the process aud p:-ocedure of e RA conducted by respondents' Furthermore,petitionerwasalsoLrainedbytheCorporate Centre Enterprising Resource Planning (CC-ERP) team of the respondent on 23't)6 2025 ' a day belore e RA' From the Login - Logout Details provided by CC- 4.3. ERP, it can bc r;een that petitioncr attempted to log in to e-tende r portal on 24 '06 '2025 from 10:42:O2 Hours to 14:18:34 Hours and succes;sfully logged in four times at 10:46:1 1 Hours' 14:13:35 Hours, 14:17"42 Hours and 14:18:34 Hours' This contradicts Petif ioner's statement in its affidavit that it encountered a technical issue around 2:09 PM Respondents petitioner successfully logged in four: times' it corr pleted the proce ss of participating in e-RA; resu it of deliberately not using the recommended failure rvas bronser and nct continuing in trRP process after logging 1n successfullY It is also stated, System Availability Report from the CC-ERP clearly establishe s that their portal was 10O% functional and available on 24 '06 '2025' The ABAP SYstem and that stnce t { t t. t. 8 Portal Start Page H ttp Availability Report dated 24 .06.2025 supports this claim.

4.4 . Respondents also state that they only became aware of the alleged technical issue and the error message "No support for Java APPLET!!" when petitioner approached their ofhce in Secunderabad, and their oflicials contacted ERP SRM Team in Gurgaon, which confirmed that there were no technical issues with e RA portal. This was communicated to petitioner at that time and they were advised to check its own internet connection and computer settings. Respondents deny the petitioner's claim that CC-trRP SRM Help Desk did not answer its calls. They clarify that help desk is located.in their Corporate Ofhce at Gurgaon and attends calls from all the users across the country. It is asserted, the busy tone petitioner may have encountered was misrepre sentation of the situation, falsely portrayed as a deliberate act by respondents. It is argued, by not following the 'Pre Requisite system settings' and using two different connections or computers, petitioner interfered with e- RA process, causing its own delay and preventing it from submitting a counter-bid. Since their e-RA was "fool-proof and system driven," [hey have no right to cancel or conduct it again. I, They deny that their refusal to re-conduct he e-RA constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9 Respo:rcients clarify that the lowest bidder before 4 .5. e-RA is called X'1 not L1 and the successful bidder after e-RA is the L1 bidder. They maintain that their e-RA u'as a fair' transparent, and tcchnologically stablc bidding proccss' and the petitioner cannot r:1aim it was "frustrated" simply becar'rse it did not get the award. Respondents emphasize that the Government of India introduct:d e tendering to bring total transparency to the Lendering process. All their tenders are displayed on "PRANIT Portal' to provide equal opportunity to all thc bidders' They clarify that l'lotihcation of Award was already issued to the

3.dresponclent-M/s.SriLakshmiConstructions,Kzrrnataka' on 27 .06.2025. This means the tendering process had concluded and \\rrit Petition, which u'as hled on 2A 06 2025' was already infru.ctuous on the date of its flling Thtl awarded contract is a tirne-bound work and any inLerference would interests and frustrate the conlracl between jeopardize their them and the successful bidder- They exptain that the award contains terms ztnd conditions that impose liabilities on the parties, and any clelay would make the contractor liable for liquidated damages. Respcndent No. 3 which r"'as awarded contract by a

5. notification of av,'ard dated 27.06.2025, for a contract price of Rs.5,17,50,000/ , exclusive of GST, in accordance with the I t t l0 terms and conditions of the tender documents, emphasizes that Clause No. 13 of e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) guidelines which stipulates 'POWERGRID shall not have any liability to bidders t. for any interruption or dclay in access to the site, irrespective of the cause', is crucial lor effective adjudication of the case. Petitioner's entire case is based on a technical giitch, which, according to this clause, cannol be a valid reason for reopening the entire Lendering process; on line tenders and auctions have been in use for a sufficient amount of time and technical glitches should not be a ground for a Writ Petition. It is further argued that petitioner, who regularly participated in bids by Respondent Nos. I and 2, should have logged in from a compatible device to avoid such issues.

5. 1 . This counter also refers to Clause No. 3 which shows that Respondents I and 2 provided training for participating in reverse auction process. Auction started at 11:OO am and concluded aL O2:2O pm. Respondent No. 3 made three quotes: the first at 12:35:02 pm on 24.06.2025, the second at l2:57:O4 pm and the third at O1:38:13 pm. Auction ended at O2:2O:34 pm. Thrs demonstrates that petitioner had sufhcient time to submit its bids. Even if the alleged error at 2:O9 pm is believed to be true, auction started at 1 1:OO am, giving petitioner sufficient time to place a bid. The scrcenshot I t t. provided by petition er is an illegible document and Respondent No. 3 reserves tl-re rlght to file an additional counter alfidavit upon receiving a clear copy lt is also noted that the trming of Lhe screenshot ert Page 65 is 14:30 on 24.06'2025, rvhich is inconsistent ivith Petitioner's claim of a technical issue at 2:O9 pm. Petitioner has not provided any proof of the alleged "404" tcchnical error thrrlugh a screenshot or a mobile picture of the computer screen. It is also argued that the terms and conditions oI e-auctton process clearly state that no liabilitv can be fastened for Lechnical failure, and on this ground alone. Lhe Writ Pctition shoulcl be dismissed The inconsistency in the out: in the letter dated petitioner's pleadings is also pointed petitioner referred to a 24 .06.2025 to ResPondents 1 and 2 "404" technical error, whiie in the Writ Petition' it reli':d on an crror ol "No support tor Java APPLET " It is further submitted that a 4O4 error would have made the website non iunctional for all users, not just Petitioner' ' It is e,rgued that petitioner should have filed proof of 5.2 the precautions taken before participating in e-auction' The)' being well aware of the process from previous auctiot.l s' shoulci have logged tn from compatible devices and followed the protocols to avoi'1 technical failures The cntirc Writ Petition is describcd as beirLg "bereft of any merits " I 'l t t I t. t2

6. Petitioner filed reply stating that on 23.06.2025, a day before e RA, respondents' team conducted a technical induction program and themselves installed the necessary software on petitioner's systems to facilitaLe participation. As per respondents' own Exhibit No. 6, u,hich shows that petitioner successfully logged into the portal during e-RA, a fact that contradicts the respondents' claim that petitioner did not adhere to the prerequisites. It is illogical for respondents to claim the petitioner failed to follow the settings while simultaneously providing evidence of petitioner's successful login four times. The petitioner maintains that it had duly followed the system settings as configured by respondents' own team but was deprived of a fair opportunity due to a technical glitch at approximately 14:09 hours on 24.06-2025. t.

6.1. Petitioner states that it was in a state of panic and distress when the technical glitch occurrcd at 14:09 hours and immediately tried to contact respondents' helpdesk and ofhcials, including Ms. Manogna, but received no response. As a resuit, they were unable to capture a screenshot at that precise moment and was compelled to submit a screenshot showing the time as 14:3O hours. Petitioner admits that it is not a new participant in the tenders and e-RA processes; they are fully aware of e-RA procedures; they received training from the I -) Corporate Centrc !)nterprising Resource Planning Te arn (CC- trRP Team) on 23.O(t.2025' Petilioner cites Clause 29 of Lhe instruct ions- to- 6.2. bidders (lTB) and ,'-p'q guidelines' which state lhc criteria for e-RA eligibility. t{eferring to Bid Comparison Statement (Annexure-ll), whiclr shows petitioner as X1" followed by A V' Mohan Reddl' as '"{2' and' Sri Lakshmi Constructions as 'X3" petitioner asst:rt.s that all lhe three bidders fall within the eligibility criterizr, l-rence, respondents' claim that A V Mohan Reddy rvas not eligible whiie Sri Lakshmi Constructions was eligible raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of thr: e-RA Process' It is stated, during the training and induction 6.3. program, the CC- CRP team remoteiy accessed and conhgured petitioner's systerrrs; if its system was not JAVA-supported' this default is solely attributable to respondents, who conhgured the system without rrlising this issue' in an e-RA with only two tenderers, the established practice of respondents is to verify if a a counter-bid is a cleliberate bidder's failurr: to submit withdrau'al or a tr:chnical problem Respondents failecl to lollow this practice despite being informed of the issue on 24 06 2025' Tt is clarified that respondents themselves had conhgured two computers for pe titioner to ensure backup in case of issues: t { t t I t4 \ they used the second computer only after the hrst one faced the technical glitch, a fact well known to respondents. Petitioner asserts that balance of convenience lies in its favor and that no prejudice would be caused to respondents if e RA is re-conducted. 7 . In the additional afhdavit l-rled on behalf of respondents, they point to the screenshot submitted by petitioner, which clearly displayed the error message "No Support for JAVA APPLET!!". Respondents clarify that this specific error message appears only when a browser other than the one with an Internet Explorer mode is used. The respondents explain that while a user can still log in and even place bids without adhering to these settings, the portal may behave erratically and cause issues. The affidavit further clarihes the status of Sri. A. V. Mohan Reddy who was X2 bidder on the price comparison sheet from PRANIT portal. However, his bid was declared "non response" because his price bid file had become corrupt and could not be opened, leading to its rejection which is in accordance with the tender provisions and that the said Mohan Reddy gracefully accepted his bid rejection. Respondents express their surprise that petitioner, who was previously awarded contracts through the same e-RA portal, is now questioning its fairness and transparency only t. t I I - l5 because its bicl failed to be placed in time due to its own { ac L1o ns 'lhe a ifidavit provides a breakdown of the three 7 .1.. stages ol the t.enclering process The hrst stage is technical cvalualion; the st:cond stage involves opening the price bids' where the ktu'est bidder is marked as X1, the next as X2' and so on. trligible bidders for the third stage are hnalized llased on bidding conditionr;. The third stage is e-Reverse Auction (e-RA)' e RA is a process u'here bidders offer prices lou'er than the Xl bidder's price. The initial e-RA window is for 2 hours' from 1l:OOhrsto130OHrs.lfnobidissuLrmittedduringthis period, auction crtds and X1 bidder is awarded the contract' If a bid is submitted cluring the last 20 minutes (from 12:40 to 13:OO Hrs), thc i,tuction automatically extends for another 20 minlltes. This ilul-o-cxtension continues until no ofler is receivecl in the hnal 2o-rninute slot, at which pioint' the bidder who submitted the l,,rst bid is declared L1 by the system' The responclents emp,hasize that there is no possibility of manually extending e RA. [n tLIe present case, petitioner did not submit any 7.2. bid in the final 2O-minute slot between 14:OO to 14:20' The auctionlhusencledaLl4:2O,andthelastbidwassubmittedby Responcler-rt No. 3, u'ho was declared Ll The affidavit provides t t I t, t t, r6 the final price of petitioner as Rs. 6, 12,O8,OOO/- (inctuding GS1') and the finai price of Respondent No. 3 as Rs. 6,10,65,000/- (inclusive of GST), showing that Respondent No. 3's bid was low,er. The prices excluding GST were Rs. 5, 18,7 I , 186/ for petitioner and Rs. 5, i7,50,000/- for Respondent No. 3. After e-RA, the portal declared Respondent No.3 the successful bidder, and Notification of the Award dated 27.06.2025 uide Rel: SR 1/C&M/WC-4078/NOA 427012025 was issued. This was done bcfore respondents received notice of the prescnt writ petition on 28.06.2025.

7.3. Respondents therefore, submit that Writ Petition was filed solely to frustrate the valid NOA Dt. 27.06.2025, which was issued through a proper e RA process. Hence, they pray that this Court may dismiss the Writ Petition as being without merit. They state that if the Writ Petition is not dismissed, POWERCRID will face financial losses due to delays in a projecr of national importance and may invite similar litigation from other unsuccessful bidders.

8. An additional affidavit was filed by petitioner. In compliance with the order dated 31.07.2025, which directed both the parties to provide information on the quantum of bids and counterbids placed during the e-RA process, this aflidavit states that after the successful complelion of the "Single Stage t1 'i Two Envelope Biding" procedure, petitioner was declared the Lowest Evaluatccl Bidder (X1), followed by AV Mohan Reddy as X2 artd Resportd,rnt No. 3 as X3. However, only petitioner and Respondent No. 3 r,r.'e re given the opportunity to participate in the e RA. Thcr trretilioner points out that AV Moha n Reddy, despite being d:clared X2, was not allowed to prarticipate because, as stated in Paragraph No. 6 of the Additional Afhdavit filed by Responden[ Nos. I & 2, his price bid uploaded to the PRANIT portal htrcl become "corrupt and could not be opened'" The petitioner ...rgues that this incident clearly indicates a t "lechnical irrequraritv and unusuality" in the PRANIT portal or the respondeltts' u'ebsite concerning the tender and e-RA process conducte:d on 24.06.2025.

8.1. Petitioner asserts that it was actively participating and conlinuousl',' offering counterbids in e-RA until a- technical glitch occurrcrl on e-RA portal at 2:09 PM on 24.06.2025. The affidavit in<:ludes a Live Bid Auction Cockpit Trial sheet as evidence, rn,hrch, according to petitioner, demonstrates its willingness to conlinue participating had the technical glitch not occurred. Petirio'rer then provides details of two other tenders to support iLs arqument. In the first tender, for construction of township (residern tial quarters) at Kurnool III pooling station, petitioner uas d:clared L1 and u'as awarded tender. The Rank { { I t, 18 Wise Bidder Details and Live Auction Cockpit for this tender are cited to show that e-RA process lasted for almost 3 days. The starting price was Rs. 10,47,52,6921-, and the hnal price was Rs. 9,35,69,898 / . This resuited in a price reduction of Rs. 1,11,82,7931- for the respondent corporation. In the second tender, for construction of a community centre at 75O /4OO KV Kurnool (Oravakal) Sub Station under Transmission, petitioner was declared L2. The Rank-Wise Bidder Details and Live Auction Cockpit fcrr this tencier also show that the e-RA process extended for aimost 3 days. The starting price was Rs. 3,67,24,386/-, which was finalized at Rs.2,85,0O,0OO/ . This led to a price reduction of Rs. 82,24,386/ for the respondent corporation. 9 . Heard M / s Indus Law Firm learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Valluri Mohan Srinivas, learned counsel for Respondents I and, 2 and Sri Thomas George, learned counsel for the 3.1 respondent. t.

10. [n support of their case, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kari-x. Mobile Priaate Limited u. t_Inion of lr.di.x.l, Jind.at Steel and Potaer Limited a. tlnion oJ Indiaz, Master Marine ' :02s SCC On tine Del t959 t :02i SCC Onlrne l)el 4401 7 L9 Services (P) Ltd. u. Metcalfe & HodgkinsontP) Ltd'3M/s Erusian Equiprnent & Chemicals Ltd' a' State o;f West Bengala and AlkhnoLnda Stone Ct'usher u' Sta:te of Madhga Pradesh (W.P.No. 23858 of 2023)' At tht threshold, a perusal of the s-Rrq guidelines 11. Clause 13 shou's thaL 'POWERGRID shall not have any liability to bidders for ant' interruption or delay in access to the site irrespective o[ [hc cause' l-Iorvevcr, Lhc core of petitioner's argument rests c)n a technical glitch that prevented it from bidding. As is evitlent from the counter, pe[itioner is thoroughly aware of thc pro,:ess ancl procedure ol e-RA; thcy were trained by the CC-ERP tt:am of the respondent on 23 06'2025 i e' one day prior to the clate of bidding; as per which' it is a pre requisite to usc 'l\,4icrosoft trdge in lnternet Explorer mode'while participating in c RA, hourever, as per the screenshot shared by petitioner, it is clisclosed that they were using Microsoft Edge browser but u'ithout internet Explorer mode' Hence' it was convincingly derron strated that the alleged 'glitch' wa s a direct consequence of petitioner's failure to adhere to the mandatory "Pre-Requisite Sl'stem Settings" of PRANIT portal According to respondents, t.he error mcssage 'No support for Java APPLtrT!!' ' (2oos) o scc tla ' (1975) I scc 70 t t t t -* f. t I 20 is a clear indication that petitioner was not using the required "Microsoft trdge in Internet Explorer mode.', This fundamental non compliance, despite petitioner's admitted prior experience and having received specific training from CC ERp team on

23.06.2025, undermines their claim of a system_wide technical lailure.

12. It is also to be noted, petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the nature of technical error. ln the letler dated 24.06.2O25, the error was described as ,4O4, error, u.hercas in the Writ petition, it is cited as,,No support for Java APPLET!!". Furthermore, the screenshot provided by them shows time - 14:30 hrs, which is after the auction was already concluded at 14 20 hrs. This suggests that petitioner did not capture a real-time issue but rather a post_auction screenshot, casting se rious doubt on the veracit5r of the claim. 13. Respondents provided detailed logs and a System Availabitity Report from CC-trRp, which confirms that the portal was 1O07o functional and available throughout e-RA process on 24 .06.2025. The fact that other bidders, including the successful bidder, Respondent No.3, were akrle to participate and place bids without any reported issues further disproves petilioner's allegation of a systemic technical glitch. The 'rejcction of AV Mohan Reddy,s bid due to a ,,corrupt,, hle is an -1 independ.ent issue related to bidder's own system and not an irregularity with e'RA portal itself While petitioner claims a frustrated legitimate 14. expectation, this cloc[rine is not applicable where the party itself has failed to mcet the basic requirements of the process Petitioner,s faiiur.: to follow the pre-requisite System Settings disqualifies it frrm ctaiming a lcgitimate expectation of a flawless biciding <:xperience The tende r documents' specifically Clause 13, explicitly indemnify thc respondents from liability for technical issues faced by bidders' irrespective of the cause' Hence, the Notifi:ation of An'ard d'ated 27 06'2O25 was issued to the successfu I bidder, Respondent No 3' after e-RA had already concluded. Respondents rcceived notice of the present contract has alreadY WritPetitionot-t28.06.2025,ada1--afterthetenderprocesswas complete. Therelbre, the Writ Petition is infrucluor-rs as the been arvarded and executed The Court completed contract unless there is cannot interfere u'ith cvidence ol malo fide inLent or a clear violation of a statutory has been sulficientlY Proven bY provision, neith:r of which a petitioner. Anv intervcntion. prejudice to the successlul at this stage, would cause gra\re bidder and result in significant lrnanciallosses..othepublicexchequerduetoprojectdelays ,l 't t t t,

15. Yet anoLher aspect is, after completion of e-RA, the

2.2 t'i n' hnal quoted price of pe[itioner was Rs.6, 12,O8,OOO/ - (including GST) whereas the final quoLed price of Respondent No.3 was Rs.6, 10,65,000 / - (inclusive GST) which is less than that of petitioner. The final price ol petitioner excluding GST was Rs.5,i8,7i,186/- whereas that of Respondent No.3 was Rs.5, 17,50,OOO/ , therelore, after completion of e_RA process, the portal has declarcd RespondenL No.3 as the successful bidder. The said action ol Respondents I and 2 cannot be said to be illegal.

16. ln vien o[ the above discussion, this Court finds that petitioner failed to substantiate its claims of a technical glitch attributablc to respondents' e-RA portal. Their failure to submit a timely bid u.as a direct consequence of its own non_ compliance with the tender's prerequisite system settings. In view of [he same, the reliance placed on the judgments noted above is not applicable to the case on hand. The actions of the respondents in relusing to re-conduct the e-RA were in strict accordance with thc terms and conditions of the tender and were justified. The Writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. t t 2l t7 COSTS 18 The \Arrit Petitton ts accordingly, dismissed. No Conserluently, the intcrim order datcd 30 06 2025 shall stand cllssoh'ed. S UP ASiADnffi-- I'TRUE COPYI' SECTION OFFII]ER One CC to lt/l/s INDUS LAW FIRM' Advocate [OP LLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS' AdV One CC to SRI VA OMAS GEORGE' Advocate IOP UCI One CC to SRI TH Two CD CoPtes ocate [OPUCI To, 1

2. J 4 BSR BS \ I i ,i t HIGH COURT DATED: 2310912025 l iiir. -,)-'l- ' /, .::. i:: ) l,:) 10 ili;T m :j / ORDER WP.No.18383 ot 2025 I a n DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS ?tr t \rf 4, o t I a I { ,,1