Panaji: In a significant ruling that could shape future challenges to govt e-auctions, the Bombay high court has held that companies cannot seek to reopen concluded auctions merely by alleging technical glitches on the auction portal. Instead, bidders must produce credible independent technical evidence to prove that the fault lay with the auction platform and not with their own systems.Dismissing a petition filed by Agravanshi Pvt Ltd, a division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar ruled that the initial burden lies on the bidder to establish, at least prima facie, that the failure was attributable to the service provider.“Where the entire relief sought is to invalidate or reopen a concluded auction on the ground that the auction platform failed, the initial burden lies on the petitioner to place before the court credible technical material showing that the fault was not at its end and that the failure was attributable to the service provider or the auction portal,” the bench observed.The case arose from the e-auction of the Cavorem-Maina Mineral Block No. XVIII in Goa, conducted through the MSTC e-auction portal on May 12, 2026.Agravanshi Pvt Ltd claimed that after a rival bidder raised the final price offer to 88.88%, it was ready to submit a higher bid but could not do so because the MSTC portal froze, became unresponsive and eventually timed out during the final stage of the auction.The company argued that it had earlier secured two mineral blocks at premiums of around 95% and 125%, and therefore had no commercial reason to stop bidding at 88.88%. It sought directions to restart the auction from the stage where the alleged technical failure occurred.Rejecting the plea, the high court said the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence showing that the disruption originated from the MSTC platform rather than from its own technological infrastructure.The bench noted that there was no evidence that any other bidder participating in the auction experienced a similar problem or that the successful bidder received any preferential treatment.“In the absence of any pleadings or proof of fraud, mala fides, bias, collusion, favouritism or procedural impropriety, and in the absence of any demonstrable infraction of the tender conditions, state’s decision to act upon the auction outcome cannot be characterised as arbitrary, irrational or perverse,” the court said.The judges cautioned that reopening a concluded auction on the basis of user-side screenshots of browser errors would create an undesirable precedent.“If allowed, the petition would unsettle the finality of the auction on a speculative basis. Such an approach would impair public confidence in e-auctions and discourage serious participation. Public interest demands that genuine systemic failures be corrected, but it equally demands that concluded auctions not be lightly reopened,” the bench observed.The court, however, clarified that it was not laying down an absolute rule against judicial intervention in e-auctions. It said courts could intervene where there is evidence of service-provider-side failure, manipulation, denial of equal opportunity, arbitrary resumption of auctions, suppression of logs, mala fide conduct or multiple contemporaneous complaints from similarly placed bidders.During the hearing, the state relied on an MSTC communication stating that between 3pm and 3.10pm on May 12, as many as 70 auctions involving 168 items were conducted simultaneously on the portal. According to MSTC, 194 bidders participated, 1,041 bids were placed, 152 users logged into the system during the period, and no communication or server issues were reported.
