In Brief
A power company awarded a five-year operations and maintenance contract to Steag Energy Services under a competitive tender using a Quality and Cost Based System (70% technical weight, 30% financial weight). A losing bidder challenged the award in Gujarat High Court, which set it aside based on marginal scoring differences. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that courts must exercise restraint in reviewing tender evaluations. The Court emphasised that judicial interference is warranted only when the tender process shows arbitrariness, illegality, or discrimination—not when merely disagreeing with administrative decisions. Since no such defects existed and the difference between bids was minuscule, the contract award to Steag was upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.