Rajasthan HC Grants Relief to Contractor Who Saw “Appeal Submitted” But Did Not Press Close Button on CPWD e-Portal

The Rajasthan High Court directed CPWD to accept an offline appeal after a contractor's technical bid rejection, citing ambiguous portal instructions and the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, disposed of a civil writ petition filed by M/s K.K. Gupta Constructions Private Limited, a company based in Udaipur, challenging the rejection of its technical bid by the Central Public Works Department. The dispute turned on a narrow but consequential question: whether a contractor who sees the words “appeal reasons submitted successfully” on the CPWD e-tender portal can reasonably conclude that its appeal has been duly filed, even if it did not press a subsequent “Close” button. The court declined to resolve that factual dispute but, invoking the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, directed the petitioner to submit an offline copy of its appeal within 24 hours and restrained CPWD from advancing the tender process until the appeal is decided.

The Tender and the Rejected Technical Bid

CPWD issued a Notice Inviting Tender for the work titled “Construction of Lateral and Axial Roads in Punjab & Rajasthan along Indo-Pakistan Border (Barmer Sector-II) on EPC Mode.” K.K. Gupta Constructions participated in the bidding process. On 3 August 2026, the respondent-Department rejected the company's technical bid, notifying the outcome on its web portal.

Under the prescribed tender procedure, a bidder aggrieved by a technical bid rejection was required to file an appeal on the CPWD e-tender portal within 48 hours. The company, through its authorised signatory Mr. Padam Raj, attempted to do so on 5 August 2026, two days after the rejection.

The "Close" Button Dispute

The core factual controversy before the court was whether the petitioner had successfully completed the appeal submission process on the e-portal. After entering appeal reasons, the screen displayed the words “appeal reasons submitted successfully.” The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Balia assisted by Mr. Divik Mathur, argued that any person of ordinary prudence would conclude from that message that the appeal had been filed. There was, counsel submitted, no specific instruction on the portal indicating that the “Close” button had also to be pressed to complete the submission.

CPWD's position, presented by Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwa assisted by Mr. Jogendra Singh and Mr. Chandan Rajpurohit, was squarely the opposite. The Department submitted that the petitioner was obliged to press the “Close” button as part of the process and that, since the button was not pressed, no appeal was ever received by the Department. Counsel compared the situation to a passenger who purchases a train ticket but fails to board the train.

At the previous hearing on 13 August 2026, the court had directed the respondents to produce a technical expert in person to address whether any appeal had in fact been submitted. In compliance, Mr. Uday Bhaskar, Project Manager, ERP Tech. Team, CPWD, New Delhi, appeared through video conferencing on 14 August 2026. Mr. Vupadhi Venkatesh, also a Project Manager from the ERP Tech. Team, appeared in person. Both shared documents and explained the procedure. Mr. Bhaskar confirmed that the Department had not received any appeal from the petitioner and that an appeal not completed by pressing the “Close” button could not be treated as duly submitted.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Dhand observed that the factual question — whether the “Close” button was or was not pressed — was genuinely disputed and could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The court described itself as not an expert in the technical functioning of the e-tender portal.

The court then turned to the documents annexed with the petitioner's additional affidavit. Those documents did reflect the message “appeal reasons submitted successfully” on the screen. The court found that in the absence of any clear and specific indication on the portal that the “Close” button was a mandatory step for successful submission, a person of ordinary prudence could reasonably believe the appeal had been filed upon seeing that message.

The court invoked the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium — where there is a right, there is a remedy — to hold that a person cannot be left without recourse entirely. Justice Dhand was explicit that the court was not pronouncing on the correctness of the procedure required to be followed by either side on the e-tender portal. The intervention was limited to ensuring the petitioner had a meaningful opportunity to pursue its appeal on merits.

The reasoning cuts against a purely mechanical reading of the tender process. Where an online system displays a success message but the backend does not register the transaction, the ordinary user's reliance on that message carries weight, at least where no contrary instruction was visibly provided. The court did not hold the portal procedure invalid, but it did hold that the absence of a clear instruction cannot be visited entirely upon the bidder.

Directions and Interim Restraint

Justice Dhand disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

• The petitioner was directed to submit an offline copy of the memo of appeal before the respondent-Department within 24 hours of the order dated 14 August 2026.
• If such an appeal is submitted within that period, the respondents are expected to consider and decide it expeditiously, preferably within two days thereafter.
• Until final disposal of the appeal, the respondents are restrained from proceeding further with the tender process in respect of the subject matter.

Outcome

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19338/2026 was disposed of on 14 August 2026. The stay application and all other pending applications in the matter also stood disposed of. The relief granted is conditional: should the petitioner fail to file the offline appeal within 24 hours, the basis for the interim restraint on the tender process will no longer hold. The Department retains the authority to decide the appeal, if submitted, within the two-day period indicated by the court.