The Supreme Court on Friday (July 10) declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court order refusing to reopen a Goa mining e-auction conducted by the Goa Government through the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC) platform for the Cavorem-Maina Mineral Block.

A partial court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Goa Bench of Bombay High Court's order, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition questioning the outcome of an e-auction conducted by the State.

The petitioner had alleged that when the successful bidder enhanced its bid to 88.88%, the MSTC portal became unresponsive, preventing it from submitting a higher bid despite being ready to do so.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal for the petitioner relied upon screenshots showing that while the petitioner's computer clock had advanced to 15:02 hours, the auction portal allegedly remained frozen at 15:01, contending that the discrepancy indicated a server-side malfunction.

He also referred to the respondents' own pleadings to submit that an MSTC officer had received a telephone complaint from the petitioner's representative at 3:09 p.m., followed by four emails sent later that afternoon reporting that the auction page had become unresponsive.

According to the petitioner, these contemporaneous complaints demonstrated that the issue had been raised immediately while the auction process was still underway.

The Bench, however, expressed reservations regarding the extent to which constitutional courts could investigate such technical controversies while exercising judicial review.

"...if these are matters which a Court in judicial review cannot plumb the depths, then tell us how is it really a judicially manageable standard.", Justice Viswanathan orally remarked.

Further, when the petitioner sought to place reliance upon an Internet Service Provider's certificate stating that there had been no disruption in internet connectivity between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on the auction date, along with a technical system health verification certificate issued by a certified Information Systems Auditor certifying that the petitioner's computer system was functioning properly.

The Court, however, noted that these documents had not been produced before the High Court, indicating that it would examine the matter on the basis of the material that had formed part of the record before the High Court.

Later on, when the Court was about to dismiss the petition, the petitioner's senior counsel sought the Court's indulgence in framing guidelines on the threshold for appointing independent technical experts in e-auction disputes; however, the Court declined to do so in the present matter.

It noted such an issue could perhaps be considered "in a given case", but indicated that "this is not a case" for laying down such guidelines. It also refused to entertain additional technical audit material that had not formed part of the record before the High Court.

Resultantly, the petition was dismissed, as the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned findings of the High Court.

Cause Title: AGRAVANSHI PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF GOA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22977/2026