Patna HC Upholds Sand Ghat E-Auction Result After Automated Bid Extension Shifted Closing Time to 2:05 PM

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of a bid submitted 30 seconds after the petitioner's claimed auction deadline, holding the extension was system-driven and valid under Clause 12 of the tender conditions.

The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Plas Radha Int Udyog, a Muzaffarpur-based firm, which had challenged the outcome of an e-auction for two sand ghats on the Budhi Gandak and Bagmati rivers under Group No. 4. The petitioner argued that the winning bid, submitted by Respondent No. 7 — Somya Construction of Ahmedabad — arrived 30 seconds after the auction had closed. A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh, in a CAV judgment dated 6 May 2026 (uploaded 13 May 2026), found that the auction's actual start time of 11:05 AM, rather than the scheduled 11:00 AM, had shifted the entire bidding window, triggering a valid automatic extension under Clause 12 of the notice inviting e-auction. The bid by Respondent No. 7 fell within that extended window, and the court found no arbitrariness or irregularity warranting interference.

The Dispute Before the Court

The Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, published a notice on 16 December 2022 in the Hindi daily Hindustan inviting e-auction bids for the settlement of two sand ghats. The auction was scheduled for 26 December 2022, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM, with Clause 12 of the tender conditions providing that if any bid was submitted within the last five minutes of the closing time, the system would automatically extend the bidding period by one hour — once only.

Three bidders were technically qualified; only two participated. The petitioner, Plas Radha Int Udyog, submitted what it claimed was the final valid bid of Rs. 1,37,21,400/- at 1:47:56 PM. Respondent No. 7, Somya Construction, then submitted a bid of Rs. 1,56,27,150/- at 2:00:30 PM. The petitioner immediately objected, contending that the auction had closed at 2:00 PM and that the bid by Respondent No. 7 arrived 30 seconds too late.

The Director of Mines issued a letter dated 25 September 2023 (Memo No. 4832) directing the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, to proceed with further action in relation to the auction, having found no irregularity. The petitioner challenged that letter and sought quashing of Respondent No. 7's selection, along with a direction that the sand ghats be allotted to it as the highest valid bidder.

The Competing Positions on Timing

The petitioner's case rested on a straightforward reading: the auction was scheduled to run from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM; a bid at 12:59:56 PM triggered the one-hour extension under Clause 12, pushing the close to 2:00 PM; and Respondent No. 7's bid at 2:00:30 PM was therefore 30 seconds outside the permissible window. On that basis, the petitioner argued that accepting the late bid was arbitrary, violated the auction conditions, and denied the petitioner a hearing before the decision was validated.

The respondents offered a different factual foundation. They submitted that due to technical reasons, the auction did not commence at 11:00 AM but at 11:05 AM. The system accordingly reflected a bidding window of 11:05 AM to 1:05 PM. A bid was submitted by Somya Construction at 1:00:30 PM — within the last five minutes of the revised closing time of 1:05 PM — which automatically triggered the Clause 12 extension. The system extended the bidding period by one hour from 1:00:30 PM, setting the new close at 2:00:30 PM. Respondent No. 7's final bid at 2:00:30 PM was therefore the last moment of the extended window, not a moment beyond it.

The respondents also pointed to the scrutiny committee constituted after the petitioner's objection. That committee — comprising technical and administrative officials — examined system-generated logs and the Auction Synopsis Report, which recorded the start time as “Dec 26, 2022 11:05:00 A.M.” The committee concluded unanimously that no bidder had been given any additional time and that the process was completed in accordance with the rules.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Sudhir Singh, writing for the Bench, framed the core question as whether the bid by Respondent No. 7 at 2:00:30 PM fell within the permissible time under Clause 12, given that the auction actually commenced at 11:05 AM.

The court examined the scrutiny committee's report in detail. The report recorded that the auction commenced at 11:05 AM due to technical reasons, that the system displayed the bidding window as 11:05 AM to 1:05 PM, and that a bid submitted at 1:00:30 PM fell within the last five minutes of that revised window. Under Clause 12, this triggered an automatic one-hour extension, running from 1:00:30 PM to 2:00:30 PM. The Auction Synopsis Report annexed to the committee's findings confirmed the 11:05 AM start time. The court noted that the petitioner had not refuted the genuineness or authenticity of that synopsis report.

The Bench found that the extension mechanism operated entirely through the automated system and did not admit any manual intervention. The record placed before the court showed no material suggesting manipulation, favouritism, or selective application of the extension. Because the extension applied uniformly to all participating bidders, the court held that no allegation of discriminatory treatment could be sustained.

On the question of judicial review in tender matters, the Bench drew on two Supreme Court decisions. In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, (2000) 5 SCC 287, the Supreme Court had held that while courts may interfere where the government acts arbitrarily or contrary to public interest, they should not interfere with administrative action unless it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. In Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Supreme Court cautioned that courts should exercise restraint in contractual and technical matters and must not use “a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder.”

The Bench also applied the principle from University of Mysore & Ors v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Ors, AIR 1965 SC 491, that courts should be slow to interfere with findings of expert or technical committees, particularly where those findings rest on specialised or technical assessment. The scrutiny committee here had examined objective, system-generated data and returned a categorical finding that the process was regular. The court saw no basis to displace that finding.

The Bench then drew together the factual conclusions: the auction commenced at 11:05 AM; the original closing time consequently shifted to 1:05 PM; a bid at 1:00:30 PM triggered the Clause 12 automatic extension to 2:00:30 PM; and Respondent No. 7's bid at 2:00:30 PM was the highest bid within that extended period. On those findings, the court held that the acceptance of Respondent No. 7's bid and its declaration as the successful bidder did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness, and the decision was in consonance with the tender conditions.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16757 of 2023. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of. Justice Shailendra Singh recorded his concurrence separately.