IN THE judgement of the case- Kundan Gold Mines Pvt. Ltd. Gurugram, Haryana v. State of Maharashtra and others, delivered on May 6, 2026, Justice Anil S Kilor and Justice Raj D Wakode, at the Bombay High Court have, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s consistent view 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 the respondent-2, MSTC Ltd. Kolkata and Mumbai, 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 has occurred at the end of the server of the R-2, expressed “considered opinion” that the challenge raised through this petition is devoid of merit and dismissed the petition. The petitioner has moved the High Court challenging the impugned notice issued by the respondent-1, Director General of Geology & Mining, Maharashtra, on December 2, 2025, declaring respondent-3 as the preferred bidder for grant of a composite license in respect of Bhimsain Killa Gold Block. The petitioner was seeking a direction to the respondent-1 to resume the second round of the e-auction process for the grant of composite license for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block from the stage at which it was allegedly interrupted on December 11, 2025 on account of technical glitches, from 5.47 pm on December 11, 2025.

 

The case of the petitioner was that he was denied the opportunity to fully and effectively participate in the second round of the e-auction conducted by the respondent-1-Director General, though the online portal owned/developed by Respondent-2 on account of a technical glitch in the said portal during the auction process. It was urged that 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. Despite clicking the ‘BLD’ button, the portal remained unresponsive and failed to receive the petitioner’s revised final price offer due to the said technical glitch. As a result thereof, the final price offer of the petitioner could not be submitted. The offer submitted by the respondent-3, Auro Infra Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad helped it in getting declared preferred bidder for the composite licence.

 

The HC has been of the considered opinion that under the facts of this case, The Court has no option but to go by the report of the experts and, in holding so, the HC is supported by the Delhi HC’s decision in the case, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and another v. Union of India & 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. In the case- Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Supreme Court has held that judicial review of administrative action has been devised to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides.

 

The SC is very clear in its mind 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. The SC has observed that the tenderer or a 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 of molehills of some technical/or procedural or some prejudice to self and persuade courts to interfere by exercising powers of judicial review should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years or delay relief or succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold.

 

Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise powers of judicial review should pose to itself 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 in accordance with relevant law could have reached”; Whether the public interest is affected. If the answers are in 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 licenses, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require higher degree of fairness in action.”

 

The High Court in paragraph 10 of the order of February 5, 2026 had specifically directed that the charges for initial expert evaluation shall be borne by respondent-2, MSTC Ltd. and that, after receipt of the report from the expert body, if no fault is found in the system of respondent-2, as alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner shall reimburse the said amount to the respondent-2. The expert body has now recorded a specific finding that no fault was found in the system of respondent-2. Accordingly, the HC has dismissed the writ petition and summarised its order with direction to the petitioner to reimburse the respondent-2 the amount incurred by it for obtaining the expert’s report within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the statement of expenditure. Respondent-2 has been asked to furnish to the petitioner, the statement of expenditure along with the relevant receipts within one week from the date of receipt of order of the HC. At this stage the petitioner’s counsel sought extension of interim relief.

 

The prayer was strongly opposed by the lawyers representing the respondents. The High Court rejected the “request”, stating that considering the findings recorded in the judgement and this being a tender matter, the Court was not inclined to grant the said prayer.