STEAG ENERGY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. GSPC PIPAVAV POWER COMPANY LTD. (GPPC)
Judicial Restraint in Technical Tenders: High Court Cannot Interfere Based on Minuscule Score Differences or Substitute its Wisdom for the Owner’s Decision when Contract is Underway.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 295
Decision Date: 25-03-2026
List of Laws
Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Tenders; Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Principle of Judicial Restraint in Contractual Matters; Government Contracts and Tenders
- Facts: The first respondent, GSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd. (GPPC), invited public tenders in January 2025 for the operation and maintenance of a 702.86 MW gas-based power plant. The evaluation was based on a Quality and Cost Based System (QCBS) with a 70:30 weightage for technical and financial bids, respectively. Following a three-stage evaluation, the appellant, M/s. Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., was declared the successful bidder with a score of 95.4978453, marginally higher than the writ petitioner’s (Respondent No. 2) score of 95.09989831. GPPC issued a Letter of Award (LOA) to the appellant on June 9, 2025, and a formal contract was executed on July 1, 2025, under which work commenced.
- Procedural Posture: The writ petitioner challenged the tender process in the High Court of Gujarat. During the proceedings, the High Court directed a re-evaluation of technical marks. Upon re-evaluation, the appellant’s technical marks were reduced by 2 points due to a date discrepancy, resulting in a tie in technical scores (93 each). Consequently, the writ petitioner’s total score became marginally higher (by 0.00205301) due to its lower price bid. The High Court quashed the LOA and contract awarded to the appellant, directing GPPC to award it to the writ petitioner. The appellant moved the Supreme Court against this judgment.
- Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the award of a contract in a highly technical tender solely based on a minuscule difference in scores discovered through judicial re-evaluation, and the extent of judicial restraint required in such matters.
- Holding: No, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upholding the original LOA and contract in favor of the appellant.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that judicial review of contractual matters must be governed by the "principle of restraint" and the "allowance of free play in the joints" for the owner. It emphasized that interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide, arbitrary, or intended to favor someone. In highly technical tenders, courts lack the expertise to act as second-guessers or technical auditors. The Court noted that the difference in scores was "minuscule" and "marginal", and at the time of judicial interference, the contract was already well underway. The Court held that the "needs of the owner" and public interest—including avoiding delays and losses to the exchequer—outweigh the mechanical application of rigid formulae by a court.
🔒 For Members Only