Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Gold Mines Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 12.12.2025 issued by the Director General, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Maharashtra, declaring respondent No. 3 as the preferred bidder for a composite licence for the Bhimsain Killa Gold Block. The petitioner sought a direction to resume the second round of e-auction from the stage it was allegedly interrupted on 11.12.2025 due to technical glitches. The petitioner argued that during the eight-minute window for final price revision, the portal became unresponsive and failed to accept its revised bid, while respondent No. 3's bid was accepted. The court examined the submissions and noted that the petitioner did not produce any contemporaneous evidence such as screenshots, system logs, or complaints to the auction portal to prove the technical glitch. The court also observed that the petitioner had successfully participated in earlier rounds without issue. The court held that the burden to prove the glitch lay on the petitioner, which was not discharged. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the allegations and no grounds to interfere with the auction process.
Headnote
A) Mining Law - E-Auction Process - Technical Glitch - Burden of Proof - Petitioner alleged technical glitch prevented bid submission - Court held that petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous evidence such as screenshots or system logs to substantiate the glitch - Held that mere assertion without proof is insufficient to invalidate the auction process (Paras 5-7). B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Tender/Auction Matters - Scope of Interference - Court reiterated that in contractual matters, the court's role is limited to examining whether the process is arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide - Held that no such infirmity was established in the present case (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to participate in the e-auction due to a technical glitch, and whether the impugned notice declaring respondent No. 3 as preferred bidder is liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned notice dated 12.12.2025 declaring respondent No. 3 as preferred bidder is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- E-auction process
- technical glitch
- burden of proof
- judicial review of administrative decisions
- composite licence grant
