In Brief
In a tender for construction of an institute campus worth Rs. 162.18 crores, the respondent claimed eligibility based on four previous projects. Three expert committees found the respondent ineligible as the work did not meet the 'similar work' criteria defined in the tender. The Single Judge upheld this decision using judicial restraint. However, the Division Bench set it aside, declaring the respondent eligible without finding malafides or perversity. The Supreme Court held that absent findings of malafides or perversity in expert reports, courts must defer to technical experts and cannot substitute their own evaluation. The Court reversed the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's decision, setting aside the tender award to the respondent.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.