In Brief
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal challenging the High Court's decision to quash a road construction contract awarded to the appellant. The respondent's bid was rejected as non-responsive for submitting a bank guarantee not in the prescribed format, with an amendment letter that could not be verified. The Court held that the tendering authority—having authored the tender documents—is the best judge of compliance and should not be second-guessed by courts on tender evaluation matters. Judicial review is limited to checking for manifest illegality, mala fides, or arbitrariness in the process, not the soundness of decisions. The Court emphasized that interference with infrastructure projects causes public harm and that courts must exercise restraint in tender disputes, particularly where work has commenced and substantial progress made. The appellant was permitted to resume and complete the work without claiming escalation for the period of litigation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.