In Brief
GPPC floated a public tender for operating and maintaining a power plant using a Quality and Cost Based Selection system (70% technical, 30% financial weightage). STEAG Energy Services won with a marginally higher total score (95.0978453 vs 95.0999831—a difference of 0.002). A rival bidder challenged this before the Gujarat High Court, which quashed STEAG's award despite acknowledging the minuscule scoring difference. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that courts must exercise restraint in tender matters and cannot interfere with fair evaluation processes based on marginal score differences. The Court reaffirmed that judicial review is limited to checking for arbitrariness, bad faith, or perversity—not substituting expert judgment or second-guessing tender decisions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.