Rs 560 Crore Bid Typo Plea Ends in Fresh Auction: Raj HC

Rs 560 Crore Meant as Rs 56 Crore, Says Bidder; State Agrees to Fresh Auction: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A bidder told the Rajasthan High Court that in an e-auction of 23 July 2026 for ERCC Nos. 200, 246 and 252 in Churu district he entered Rs 560,00,14,474 instead of an intended Rs 56,00,14,474, and sought relief against that bid (para 1). The Court made no finding on the claimed error. On the State's statement that fresh bidding would be held at a reserve price of Rs 56 crore, open to all eligible bidders including him, and his consent, the petition was disposed of (paras 2-4).

Key holdings

The petitioner said his Rs 560,00,14,474 bid in the 23 July 2026 e-auction was a typing error for Rs 56,00,14,474; the Court made no finding on that claim (paras 1-4).

On complete instructions, the State undertook to start a fresh bidding process at a reserve/base price of Rs 56 crore (para 2).

All eligible bidders, including the petitioner, are entitled to take part once the fresh tender is floated (para 2).

The petitioner had no objection, and the petition was disposed of on the consensus; the order says nothing about his bid security of Rs 4,85,68,448 (paras 3-4).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner took part in an e-auction held on 23 July 2026 for ERCC Nos. 200, 246 and 252, District Churu. The respondents are the State, its mines officials and MSTC, which maintains the auction's electronic records (para 1). His case was that his bid of Rs 560,00,14,474 was an inadvertent typographical or human error for an intended Rs 56,00,14,474, reported immediately, with a representation dated 23 July 2026 (para 1). He sought to set aside the treatment of that bid as binding, an examination of the electronic records, a bar on any Letter of Intent or work order, protection of his bid security of Rs 4,85,68,448, and restored bidding from the H-2 stage or a fresh auction (para 1).

Court's Findings

The order records no finding on the petitioner's account of a typing error, on the electronic records or on whether the bid bound him (paras 1-4). The Additional Advocate General, having obtained complete instructions, stated that the respondents would initiate a fresh bidding process at a reserve/base price of Rs 56 crore, in which all eligible bidders, including the petitioner, would be entitled to take part once the tender is floated, and asked that the petition be disposed of on that basis (para 2). The petitioner agreed and had no objection to a fresh bidding process with a baseline amount of Rs 56 crore (para 3). In view of the consensus between the parties, the Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly (para 4). The order does not deal with the bid security of Rs 4,85,68,448, the petitioner's representation, any Letter of Intent or the H-2 option sought in the petition (paras 1-4).

Legal Principle

The order decides no question of law. Where the State, on complete instructions, undertook to hold fresh bidding at a stated reserve price open to all eligible bidders, including the petitioner, and the petitioner did not object, the High Court disposed of the writ petition on that consensus without ruling on the disputed bid (paras 2-4).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This is a consent order, not a ruling on mistaken bids. The High Court did not decide whether the Rs 560,00,14,474 bid was a typing error for Rs 56,00,14,474 or whether it bound the bidder (paras 1-4). The dispute ended because the State offered fresh bidding at a reserve price of Rs 56 crore open to all eligible bidders, and the petitioner accepted (paras 2-3). Bidders should not cite it as authority that a keying error voids a bid. The order is also silent on the Rs 4,85,68,448 bid security the petitioner sought to protect (para 1), so it settles nothing about that deposit. Other eligible bidders may take part in the fresh tender once it is floated (para 2).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.