A bidder cannot claim EMD refund due to an inadvertent error in a bid amount when sufficient safeguards exist in the bidding process to prevent such mistakes.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent Port Authorities to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs. 29,42,418/-. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 invited bids through E-Tender-cum-E-Auction vide NIT No. SMP/KDS/LND/87-2023 dated 1st November, 2023 for allotment of vacant land at East Medinapore, Jellinghan, Gangrachar being Plot No. 82/23(A), on long term lease of 30 years, on ‘as is where is basis’ without renewal option against payment on annual rent/ upfront basis.

2. The petitioner had participated in the said tender by depositing the earnest money amounting to Rs. 29,42,418/- out of which an amount of Rs. 55,200/- was for the bank guarantee.

3. Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the e-auction was conducted on the server of the respondent no. 4. The e-auction portal of the respondent no. 4 is designed in such a fashion that in case an abnormal price bid is submitted by any bidder, by way of a pop-up, the portal would show an alert to the concern bidder. On 16th February, 2024, the authorized representative of the petitioner participated in the e-auction. The petitioner has been quoting its price bid one rupee more than the quote of the highest competitor bidder. He submits that there was an inadvertent mistake in the last quote submitted by the petitioner wherein instead of Rs. 2000701.00, quoted of Rs. 20007001.00. He submits that the said inadvertent mistake could not be noticed since the portal did not send any alert by way of a pop-up.

4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner had opted to submit a bid amount of Rs. 20,00,701/- but when the confirmation of the bid amount was issued to the petitioner, it was noticed by the petitioner that the bid amount has been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 2,00,07,001/-. He submits that immediately after the e-auction was over and the bids submitted by the respective bidders were disclosed, the petitioner realized the inadvertent mistake by mentioning the bid amount of Rs.2,00,07,001/- instead of Rs. 20,00,701/-.

5. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner has not authorized Shri Rabi Sankar Mohanty to communicate officially with the tendering authorities who has sent an email on 16th February, 2024 with the request to consider the 2nd last e-auction bid submitted by the petitioner and not the last e-auction bid, which was submitted inadvertently with an extra “0” (zero) between the digits “7” and “1”. He submits that the petitioner has never made any request for withdrawal of its offer.

6. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the inadvertent error in the last quote submitted in the e-auction on behalf of the petitioner was also sent to the respondent no. 4 by an email dated 17th February, 2024 and the respondent no. 4 intimated that the flashing message with an alert with a quote more than five (5) times must have been displayed on the screen. The respondent no. 4 further intimated that the last bid submitted by the petitioner in the e-auction cannot be cancelled and the same is legally binding on the petitioner. In response to the said e- mail of the respondent no. 4 dated 17th February, 2024, Mr. Rabi Sankar Mohanty responded to the e-mail clarifying that no flashing message with alert of bid submitted five times more than the last bid was displayed on the screen due to which the inadvertent mistake in quoting the last bid could not be noticed. He submits that the respondent no. 4 further informed that there is no provision to c