Supreme Court – Minor Differences in scoring or evaluation of the tenders of the bidding contractors do not justify judicial intervention.
GPCA floated the tender in January 2025 and the Letter of Acceptance was granted on 9.6.2025. The contract was executed on 1.7.2025.
This Court has emphasized that “using the magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder”
It is rather strange that in the whole process of judicial Scrutiny the contesting contractors as well as the Court lost sight of the needs and requirements of the Owner
The final choice is of the owner, and it is for the owner to take the final decision with necessary flexibility and pragmatism. While exercising judicial review of contractual matters, constitutional courts do not exercise, should not exercise ex-ante jurisdiction to pre-empt executive actions. On this count, High Court has exceeded the first principle of judicial restraint in contractual matters.
Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court should not substitute own assessment for that of the tendering authority especially in QCBS scoring systems.
Judgment dated 25.3.2026 of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.30209-30210 of 2025 of M/s. Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt td Vs. GSPC Pipavav Power Company LTD (GPPC) and others

