SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
N. NAGARESH, J.
KSR Marine Services Pvt. Limited - Appellant 
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent 
WP(C) No. 13872 Of 2025 
Decided On : 09-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.D.KISHORE, SMT.MEERA GOPINATH, SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA), SHRI.ANANT KISHORE
For the Respondent: SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR),SMT.T.A.LUXY, SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR PISHARADY,SRI.ANZIL SALIM, SHRI.SANJAY SELLEN, SRI.P.I.DAVIS, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The court ruled that technical failures in the e-procurement system justified allowing a petitioner to submit a bid despite missing the deadline, emphasizing the importance of fair opportunity in tendering processes.

Headnote:

(A) Tendering Process - Electronic Tendering System - The petitioner, a Company engaged in dredging projects, sought to submit an online bid for desiltation work but faced technical issues due to the e-procurement portal's malfunction, leading to non-submission of the bid by the deadline. The petitioner remitted ₹25,05,900/- but could not upload the tender documents. The 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement to make payments 72 hours in advance. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the petitioner had taken all necessary steps to submit the tender and was hindered by a technical glitch, warranting judicial intervention to allow the bid submission. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner attempted to submit an online tender for desiltation work but encountered issues with the e-procurement system, resulting in the inability to upload the tender documents before the deadline.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had made all necessary efforts to submit the tender and was prevented from doing so due to a technical fault.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was entitled to submit the bid despite the technical difficulties and the implications of the 2nd respondent's instructions regarding payment timelines.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the technical failure of the e-procurement system justified allowing the petitioner to submit the bid, as the petitioner had complied with all other requirements.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner is a Company engaged in Capital and Maintenance dredging projects. The petitioner seeks to declare that non-submission of online bid by the petitioner in furtherance of Ext.P1 tender notification on the last date scheduled for submission is due to the error in e-procurement portal and that the petitioner is entitled to submit its bid.

2. The 2nd respondent invited international competitive bidding in electronic tendering system for selecting a contractor for awarding desiltation work of Mangalam Reservoir, as per Ext.P1 invitation for bids. The last date and time for online bid submission was 29.03.2025 at 4 pm. The last date of submission of documents offline was on 05.04.2025. Technical and commercial bids were to be opened on 07.04.2025.

3. The petitioner attempted to submit online tenders as per the directives in Ext.P1 before the last date and time. The petitioner had remitted ₹25,05,900/- through the online portal. The petitioner states that even though the money was debited from the petitioner's Bank account, the same could not be processed due to the fault of e-procurement system and the petitioner could not move to the next level for uploading the tender.

4. The petitioner therefore sent a communication on 29.03.2025 at 12.57 pm to the 2nd respondent pointing out that the tender documents could not be uploaded. As there was no response, the petitioner sent yet another communication to the 3rd respondent at 2.37 pm. The time limit in Ext.P1 for submission of online bid expired at 4 pm on 29.03.2025. The petitioner states that it is due to the fault of the 3rd respondent or the banking institution that the error crept in resulting in non accounting of the amount remitted by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore sought to direct respondents 1 and 2 to accept the tender bids submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1.

5. The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition. The 2nd respondent pointed out that in the e-tenders Kerala Portal, in the instructions part, under “Announcements” tab, Note 5 states that bidders, who are using SBI MOPS (Multi Optional Payment System) or other Bank's Internet Banking, are requested to make online payments 72 hours in advance. Sufficient time was given to the bidders. It was the responsibility of the petitioner to upload the tender documents in time.

6. The 2nd respondent submitted that enquiry was made to the e-tender officials as to whether there is any option available in the e-tender portal to consider other bidders to an already opened bid. They have informed that e-tender system does not have the provision to enable the participation of a party in a tender whose bid submission end date has elapsed and the bid opening has done. The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader (Irrigation) representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 4th respondent.

8. When this writ petition came up for admission on 04.04.2025, this Court passed an interim order directing the 2nd respondent not to finalise the tender till the date of next hearing. The interim order was extended from time to time.

9. Ext.P1 is the notice inviting tender inviting international competitive bidding in electronic tendering system for selecting a contractor for awarding the desiltation works of Mangalam Reservoir, Palakkad. Ext.P1 is dated 22.02.2025. The petitioner applied for the contract pursuant to Ext.P1. The petitioner attempted to submit online tenders. The petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs. 25,05,900/- through the online portal provided by the Kerala State IT Mission.

10. The amount was debited from the account of the Company at 11.23 am on 29.03.2025. This is evident from Ext.P2. It is clear that the amount was deducted before 4 pm on 29.03.2025. Due to some fault in the e-procurement system, the petitioner could

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top