M/S Srvs Industries vs. Power Grid Corporation Of INDIA Limited

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SRVS Industries, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' refusal to re-conduct an e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) process. The e-RA was for the construction of roads and drains at Kurnool-3 Pooling Station, under Tender Specification No. SR-1/C&M/WC-4078/2025. The petitioner claimed to have encountered a technical glitch on the respondents' e-RA portal on June 24, 2025, which prevented them from participating further. They submitted a representation requesting a re-conduction of the e-RA, which was not considered. The petitioner sought to have the e-RA conducted on June 24, 2025, declared void and to direct the respondents to conduct it afresh. The respondents, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and its Senior General Manager, argued that the petitioner failed to adhere to the mandatory system settings for the e-RA portal, leading to the alleged technical issue. They also presented logs confirming the portal's functionality and the successful participation of other bidders, including the third respondent, M/s Sri Lakshmi Constructions, who was ultimately declared the successful bidder.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate their claim of a technical glitch attributable to the respondents' e-RA portal. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to submit a timely bid was a direct consequence of their own non-compliance with the tender's prerequisite system settings. The Court noted that the petitioner was trained on the required settings the day before the bidding but failed to adhere to them. The error message "No support for Java APPLET!!" was interpreted as a clear indication that the petitioner was not using the required "Microsoft Edge in Internet Explorer mode." The Court also found inconsistencies in the petitioner's reporting of the technical error and the timing of the screenshot provided. Furthermore, the respondents provided detailed logs and a System Availability Report confirming the portal's 100% functionality during the e-RA process. The fact that other bidders, including the successful bidder, participated without issues further disproved the petitioner's allegation of a systemic technical glitch. The Court concluded that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not applicable as the petitioner failed to meet the basic requirements. The tender documents, specifically Clause 13, explicitly indemnified the respondents from liability for technical issues. As the contract had already been awarded and executed, and no mala fide intent or clear violation of a statutory provision was proven, the Court found no grounds to interfere. The actions of the respondents in refusing to re-conduct the e-RA were found to be in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender and were justified. The Writ Petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's request for conducting the e-RA process afresh, in view of the alleged technical glitch, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a technical glitch on the respondents' e-RA portal prevented them from participating in the crucial final phase of the auction, thereby denying them a meaningful opportunity to carry on their lawful business and trade. They argued this constituted a violation of Article 19(1)(g) and was discriminatory. They relied on the principle of legitimate expectation. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the alleged technical glitch was a direct consequence of the petitioner's failure to adhere to the mandatory "Pre-Requisite System Settings" of the PRANIT portal, specifically the requirement to use "Microsoft Edge in Internet Explorer mode." They presented evidence, including system logs and the fact that other bidders successfully participated, to demonstrate that the portal was functional. They also pointed out inconsistencies in the petitioner's description of the error and the timing of the screenshot provided. The respondents further argued that Clause 13 of the tender documents indemnified them from liability for technical issues faced by bidders, irrespective of the cause. They also stated that the contract had already been awarded to the successful bidder, Respondent No. 3, and intervention would cause prejudice.