1. Petitioner unable to submit bids on GeM portal due to technical glitches, sought extension of time. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Alps Mining Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
NTPC Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9184/2026 | W.P.(C) 9191/2026 | W.P.(C) 9233/2026 | W.P.(C) 9243/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumit Bansal, Ashish Aggarwal, Tanya Aggarwal, Nalin Dhingra, Tulna Rampal
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, Adarsh Tripathi, Vikram Singh Baid, Ajitesh Garg, Amit Gupta, Naman, Muskan Goyal, Shweta Bharti, Avdhesh Bairwa, Tejaswini Chandrashekhar, Nishi Rathore, Manoj Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumit Bansal, Ashish Aggarwal, Tanya Aggarwal, Nalin Dhingra, Tulna Rampal
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, Adarsh Tripathi, Vikram Singh Baid, Ajitesh Garg, Amit Gupta, Naman, Muskan Goyal, Shweta Bharti, Avdhesh Bairwa, Tejaswini Chandrashekhar, Nishi Rathore, Manoj Kumar
A bidder cannot be disqualified from a public tender due to technical glitches in the government procurement portal if the glitch is acknowledged by the authority and the bidder demonstrated diligence, as fairness and maximum participation are essential in public procurement.
Headnote:(A) Public Procurement - Technical Glitches - Bidders cannot be prejudiced by systemic failures or intermittent glitches in a government procurement portal if the bidder was diligent and the glitch was acknowledged by the portal authority. (Para 28, 32)
(B) Article 226 - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - The Court may exercise its jurisdiction to ensure fairness and maximum participation in public tenders when a ready and willing bidder is excluded for reasons entirely outside its control. (Para 32)
(C) State Largesse - Fair Procedure - Public enterprises are obligated to follow a fair procedure to ensure fair competition in public procurement, and excluding a qualified bidder due to technical errors in the system is undesirable. (Para 32)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to submit bids after the deadline due to acknowledged technical glitches on the GeM portal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner attributed non-submission to portal glitch; respondents argued lack of diligence and no systemic failure. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. GeM admitted glitches; petitioner's proactive emails and multiple login attempts demonstrated bona fides. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. A bidder cannot be prejudiced by technical glitches in the procurement portal beyond its control. (Para 28 , 32 )
5. Petitioner directed to be allowed to submit bids via portal or physically; respondent to proceed per RFP. (Para 33 , 34 )
6. Can a bidder be denied relief due to a technical glitch in the e-procurement portal?
No, if the glitch is acknowledged by the portal operator and the bidder was diligent, the bidder cannot be prejudiced. (Para 28 , 31 , 32 )
7. What constitutes a diligent bidder in the context of an e-tender?
A bidder who makes bona fide and repeated attempts to submit bids before the deadline and immediately reports glitches. (Para 27 , 28 )
8. Is the number of other successful bidders relevant to deny relief for a portal glitch?
No, other bidders' success does not negate a specific bidder's inability, especially when the portal admits intermittent glitches. (Para 27 , 31 )
9. What is the court's role when a state entity's e-procurement system has technical limitations?
The court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure fairness and enable participation of diligent bidders. (Para 28 , 32 )
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This batch of petitions has been filed seeking a reasonable extension of time for the petitioner to submit its bids on the Government e- Marketplace (GeM) portal/respondent no.2 or in the alternative, a direction to the respondent to cancel the GeM bids dated 06.06.2026 and to issue fresh bids. The details of the bids are as below: -
| Casenumber | ParticularofGeMBiddated06.06.2026 |
|---|---|
| W.P.(C)9184/2026 | GEM/2026/B/7629446 for procurement of 5,00,000 Metric Tonnes of Domestic coal for NTPC Gadarwara SuperThermalPowerProject |
| W.P.(C)9191/2026 | GEM/2026/B/7627356 for procurement of 5,00,000 Metric Tonnes of Domestic coal for NTPC Solapur SuperThermalPowerProject |
| W.P.(C)9233/2026 | GEM/2026/B/7629534 for procurement of 5,00,000 metrictonnesofDomesticcoalforNTPCKudgiSuper ThermalPowerProject |
| W.P.(C)9243/2026 | GEM/2026/B/7623455 for procurement of 5,00,000 metric tonnes of Domestic coal for NTPC Khargone SuperThermalPowerProject |
2. At the outset, we may briefly narrate the facts as gathered from the record. The petitioner in all four petitions is a company incorporated as per the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent No.1- National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) had floated four separate but simultaneous tenders on the GeM portal for procurement of domestic coal for four of its Thermal Power Stations at Gadarwara, Solapur, Kudgi and Khargone. The buyer- added Bid Specific Terms and Conditions of the subject specifically recorded that “Techno-commercial bids for all the four stations shall be opened simultaneously”. The deadline for submitting the bid was originally29.06.2026, which was later revised and extended to 06.07.2026.
3. Mr. Sumit Bansal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner would submit that on 06.07.2026, between 09.00AM to 10.00AM, the petitioner tried to access the GeM portal but the GeM portal was completely inaccessible to the petitioner. The petitioner reported the same login/access/technical issue to the GeM Helpdesk as well as to the officers of NTPC by email dated06.06.2026 at 10:23AM.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that it sent other follow up emails on the same day, enclosing screen recordings and screenshots of the persistent error on the GeM portal. Mr. Bansal stated that even the GeM Helpdesk through its email acknowledged the receipt of the complaint and forwarded the same to the concerned department. However, the respondent no.1 denied extension for the submission of the bids, even though the non-submission of the bid by the petitioner was caused entirely due to the action of the respondents.
5. It is the case of the petitioners as contended by Mr. Bansal that the petitioner sent another email seeking extension of bid submission deadline due to the inaccessibility of the GeM portal as the petitioner was unable to participate in the subject tender. The petitioner received an email from the respondent no.2 stating that the concerns of the petitioner would be resolved, however, the expected date of resolution would be 07.07.2026/08.07.2026.
6. Mr. Bansal has stated that the Director of the petitioner company vide a detailed email addressed to the officers of NTPC placed on record that the petitioner was fully prepared to submit its bids well before the cut off time of 11:00 AM having already compiled and uploaded all the requisite documents including the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as well as the security deposit before the cut off time. The technical glitches in the GeM portal are not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner had tried several times to submit their bids after clearing cache and cookies and had also raised a formal ticket with the GeM authorities before the cut off time with a copy sent to NTPC.
7. It is contended by Mr. Bansal that it is the procuring entity which is solely responsible for ensuring that the tender process is completed
