JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner is a Company engaged in Capital and Maintenance dredging projects. The petitioner seeks to declare that non-submission of online bid by the petitioner in furtherance of Ext.P1 tender notification on the last date scheduled for submission is due to the error in e-procurement portal and that the petitioner is entitled to submit its bid. 2. The 2 nd respondent invited international competitive bidding in electronic tendering system for selecting a contractor for awarding desiltation work of Mangalam Reservoir, as per Ext.P1 invitation for bids. The last date and time for online bid submission was 29.03.2025 at 4 pm. The last date of submission of documents offline was on 05.04.2025. Technical and commercial bids were to be opened on 07.04.2025. 3. The petitioner attempted to submit online tenders as per the directives in Ext.P1 before the last date and time. The petitioner had remitted ?25,05,900/- through the online portal. The petitioner states that even though the money was debited from the petitioner's Bank account, the same could not be processed due to the fault of e-procurement system and the petitioner could not move to the next level for uploading the tender. 4. The petitioner therefore sent a communication on 29.03.2025 at 12.57 pm to the 2 nd respondent pointing out that the tender documents could not be uploaded. As there was no response, the petitioner sent yet another communication to the 3 rd respondent at 2.37 pm. The time limit in Ext.P1 for submission of online bid expired at 4 pm on 29.03.2025. The petitioner states that it is due to the fault of the 3 rd respondent or the banking institution that the error crept in resulting in non accounting of the amount remitted by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore sought to direct respondents 1 and 2 to accept the tender bids submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. 5. The 2 nd respondent resisted the writ petition. The 2 nd respondent pointed out that in the e-tenders Kerala Portal, in the instructions part, under “Announcements” tab, Note 5 states that bidders, who are using SBI MOPS (Multi Optional Payment System) or other Bank's Internet Banking, are requested to make online payments 72 hours in advance. Sufficient time was given to the bidders. It was the responsibility of the petitioner to upload the tender documents in time. 6. Sufficient time was given to the bidders. It was the responsibility of the petitioner to upload the tender documents in time. 6. The 2 nd respondent submitted that enquiry was made to the e-tender officials as to whether there is any option available in the e-tender portal to consider other bidders to an already opened bid. They have informed that e-tender system does not have the provision to enable the participation of a party in a tender whose bid submission end date has elapsed and the bid opening has done. The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader (Irrigation) representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 4 th respondent. 8. When this writ petition came up for admission on 04.04.2025, this Court passed an interim order directing the 2 nd respondent not to finalise the tender till the date of next hearing. The interim order was extended from time to time. 9. Ext.P1 is the notice inviting tender inviting international competitive bidding in electronic tendering system for selecting a contractor for awarding the desiltation works of Mangalam Reservoir, Palakkad. Ext.P1 is dated 22.02.2025. The petitioner applied for the contract pursuant to Ext.P1. The petitioner attempted to submit online tenders. The petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs. 25,05,900/- through the online portal provided by the Kerala State IT Mission. 10. The amount was debited from the account of the Company at 11.23 am on 29.03.2025. This is evident from Ext.P2. It is clear that the amount was deducted before 4 pm on 29.03.2025. Due to some fault in the e-procurement system, the petitioner could not move to the next level for uploading the tender. Ext.P3 would show that the status with respect to the payment of EMD is shown as “pending transaction”. 11. As soon as the petitioner noted this issue, Exts.P4 and P5 e-mail communications were sent to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents before 4 pm. However, there was no response from respondents 2 and 3. There is no serious disputes regarding these facts. 11. As soon as the petitioner noted this issue, Exts.P4 and P5 e-mail communications were sent to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents before 4 pm. However, there was no response from respondents 2 and 3. There is no serious disputes regarding these facts. The contention of the 2 nd respondent is that in e-tenders Kerala Portal, in the instructions part, it was specifically stated that bidders, who are using Multi Optional Payment System or Internet Banking System, shall make online payments 72 hours in advance. 12. The e-tenders Kerala Portal instructions part is not a part of tender documents or conditions. The isisue involved is international competitive bidding. The materials available in the writ petition would show that the petitioner had taken all effective steps to submit the tender making the requisite payment. It is due to some technical glitch that the petitioner was prevented from submitting and uploading tender. This Court has, in similar circumstances, directed the authorities to consider the bids of similarly situated petitioners. The writ petition is allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to permit the petitioner to submit the online bid pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification. The 2 nd respondent shall consider the petitioner's bid along with other bids.