Disputes arising from technical glitches in tender processes are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution, requiring expert evaluation beyond the court's jurisdiction.

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , 1950, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:-

“a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconduct the Reverse Auction in E-Tender Id GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/ SMS Banking for Delivery of SMS for IPPB (Under Opex Model);

b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconduct the bidding process under the E-Tender ID GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/SMS Banking for Delivery of SMS for IPPB (Under Opex Model);

c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that the inaction on part of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not rectifying the technical glitch has resulted in loss of due opportunity to the Petitioner in E-Tender Id GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/ SMS Banking For Delivery of SMS for IPPB (under Opex Model);

d. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order for directing the Respondents to forthwith cancel the Tender issued by Respondent No.3;

e. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the entire action of Respondents in issuing the Letter of Award to L1 bidder in E-Tender Id GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/ SMS Banking for Delivery of SMS for IPPB (under Opex Model) as highhanded, illegal, manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional;

f. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents, its officers, employees and agents to forebear them from giving effect, in any manner whatsoever, to the E-Tender Id GEM/2024/B/5019145 dated 07 June 2024 for Selection of Bidder to Provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/ SMS Banking for Delivery of SMS for IPPB (under Opex Model);

g. pass ad-interim ex-parte orders; and.

h. Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the present case.”

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Mr. Jayant Mehta and Mr. Shashank Garg, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner had bid for the Tender floated by the respondent no.2/Government E-marketPlace (hereinafter referred as “GeM”) for selection of bidder to provide SMS Gateway Services and Missed Call/SMS banking for delivery of SMS for India Post Payments Bank (hereinafter referred as “IPPB/respondent no. 3”) (under OPEX model) vide the Notice Inviting Tender/Request For Proposal dated 07.06.2024. The technical bid of the petitioner was duly accepted by the respondent no.2/GeM on 13.08.2024 and the learned senior counsel submitted that it is undisputed that the petitioner and respondent no.4/ACL Mobile Private Limited both were technically qualified and had entered into the Reverse Auction process.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was during the Reverse Auction process when petitioner had faced technical glitch where it was not able to enter/modify the next lower bid in the Reverse Auction process and the portal was not accepting the figures and the save/submit button was unresponsive. He submitted that the petitioner had immediately raised the ticket with the respondent no.2/GeM portal for resolution of the glitch it faced. However, despite lodging the dispute and ticket having been generated, the GeM portal team did not assist the petitioner in resolving the glitch and ultimately it was forcibly kept out of the Reverse Auction process.

4. He submitted that it was due to this unreasonable and unjust actions/inactions o