AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SOUMEN SEN, C.J.
Heard Mr. P.I. Davis, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants, Mr. Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Mr. B. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. D. Kishore, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. George Thomas Mevada, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Amal George, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Pursuant to our earlier order dated 31.01.2026, the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India has filed an affidavit, in which, paragraph No.4 reads as follows:
“4.In the present case, the bidder’s account was debited, but the transaction status appeared as “Bank Response Pending” on the National Informatics Centre (NIC) portal due to the non-updation of real-time payment confirmation between ICICI Bank and State Bank of India. In turn, NIC was also unable to receive the online confirmation, which resulted in the transaction being reflected as pending. It is further submitted that the bidder initiated the payment on 29.03.2025 (Saturday) and the amount was debited from the bidder’s ICICI Bank account on the same day. Since 30.03.2025, was a Sunday, no inter-bank settlement took place on that day. Therefore, the transaction continued to remain in ~ pending status»and as “Bank Response Pending” at the NIC. On 31.03.2025, (Monday), the Bidder’s Bank settled the funds and shared the payment details. State Bank of India updated the transaction status and credited the amount to the Government account on 31.03.2025 itself.”
It appears from the aforesaid paragraph that the writ petitioner is not at fault and had submitted his bid within the stipulated period. By a previous order dated 01.12.2025, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, presided over by Justice Nitin Jamdar, who was then the Hon’ble Chief Justice, passed the following order:
“Heard Mr. P. I. Davis, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant State, Mr. D. Kishore, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr. B. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. 2. Admit. List in the hearing board commencing from 5 January 2026. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant-State seeks stay of the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment was rendered on 9 June 2025. The impugned judgment only permits the Original Petitioner to participate in the tender process. The appeal was filed with delay, and the delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that a review petition had been filed. According to the Petitioner, these steps were taken only after filing a contempt petition. Even today, the tender has not been finalized. That being the position, we are not inclined to grant any interim order. It is only a participation that has been permitted. If the Petitioner is not qualified, or if the bid does not conform to the requirements of the tender, it is always open to the authority concerned to take an appropriate decision in that regard. Merely permitting the Petitioner to participate in the tender process does not confer any rights on the Petitioner. If the Petitioner’s bid is rejected upon scrutiny, the Petitioner will have to take out substantive remedy. In view of this position and on the ground of delay, interim relief is refused.”
In view of the above, we allow the participation of the writ petitioner in the tender process. All other directions issued in the order dated 01.12.2025 shall continue to be followed. The 2nd respondent is directed to co-operate in facilitating the participation of the writ petitioner in the tender process.
The learned Special Government Pleader submits that under the present situation, re-tendering may be the only option to bring transparency. It is, however, for the appellants to decide on the future course of action.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.