In Brief
TANGEDCO floated a tender for a 2×660 MW thermal power project. Two qualified bidders (BHEL and CSEPDI-Trishe) participated. An independent financial consultant, appointed per Board Resolution, evaluated bids and found BHEL as L1 (lowest bidder), leading to contract award to BHEL. CSEPDI challenged the evaluation, alleging the consultant wrongly loaded commitment fee and interest on management/guarantee fees during construction period. The High Court Division Bench allowed CSEPDI's petition, finding the process arbitrary and biased. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that complex financial evaluations must be reviewed with restraint; courts cannot re-evaluate expert assessments on substantive grounds. The consultant's report was not prima facie erroneous. Appeals allowed, contract award upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.