2025:BHC-OS:21624-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.36322 OF 2025 Oberoi Realty Limited .. Petitioner Vs.

Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Chirag Kamdar, Mr. Pranav Sampat, Mr. Shayan Dasgupta and Ms. Sakshi Kapadia, Advocates, i/by Khaitan & Co., for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Adarsh, Mr. Rajdatt, Mr. T.J. Pandian, Ms. Noorjahan Khan and Mr.

Gautam, Advocates for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General, i/by Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER 2025.

PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

Dr. Sathe, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has limited his challenge to the petitioner’s non-participation in a tender floated by respondent no.2 to a single issue, i.e, the petitioner was prevented from uploading its complete set of bid documents owing to technical glitch on the website/portal of the respondent no.2.

2. As per the RFP, the original deadline for submission of bids was 14^th October 2025. This deadline was extended through multiple corrigenda, the last of which stipulated 11^th November 2025 at 15:00 hours as the final cut-off. Dr. Sathe relied upon the screen-shots reflecting the documents that were uploaded on 11^th November 2025 between 14:41 and 14:54 hours on the website of the respondent no.2 (annexed at pages 153 and 154 of the petition). He submitted that thereafter due to a technical malfunction on respondent no. 2’s portal, the financial proposal could not be uploaded before the 15:00 hours deadline. A second attempt to re-upload the documents at 14:58 hours also failed. At 15:00 hours, the petitioner immediately contacted the official designated in the tender documents seeking urgent assistance, but received none. The petitioner’s subsequent e-mails dated 11^th November 2025, complaining of technical issues, also went unanswered. On 12^th November 2025, upon accessing the portal, the petitioner discovered that its bid had been disqualified, presumably due to its inability to upload the financial proposal within the stipulated time.

3. Dr. Sathe contends that the disqualification is arbitrary, as the petitioner was prevented from submitting its bid for no fault of its own, and that such exclusion undermines the objective of securing maximum participation and optimal revenue for the State. He relies on the judgment in Pyramid Infratech Co. & Anr. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. (OOCJ Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 22311 of 2023), wherein this Court observed that alleged technical glitches can be verified through the respondents. He submitted that this could be similarly ascertained by calling for a report from the technical expert appointed by the respondent no.2 and for this limited purpose, notice ought to be issued by this Court.

4. Mr. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, opposed the petition and tendered a copy of the counter-affidavit dated 17^th November 2025 across the bar. He denied the petitioner’s assertions and submitted that there was no technical glitch in respondent no. 2’s portal. He relied on the averments in the affidavit, the relevant portion of which read as under:

“h. That it is admitted position that the RFP was issued on

08.08.2025 stipulating inter alia following specific details:

I. Offline pre-bid meeting will be on 09.09.2025 at 11:30 hrs.

II. Commencement of downloading of e-bid documents on

22.08.2025 which finally deferred on 27.08.2025 at

18:00 hrs.

III. Last date of receiving queries on 12.09.2025 at 16:00 hrs.

IV. Last date of submission of e-bid on 14.10.2025 and same was shifted on 11.11.2025 at 15:00 hrs.

i. Thus, it is admitted position that the total days 77 days were available to the bidders from downloading to submission of e-

bid documents.

j. That needless to submit that respondent no.2 not only th