Summary
Three expert bodies found a construction bidder ineligible under the tender’s similar-work requirement. The Court held that the High Court’s Division Bench exceeded judicial-review limits by substituting its own technical assessment without finding mala fides or perversity. It restored the original award and recorded the successful appellant’s willingness to match the rival price.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could replace the expert assessment of technical eligibility without finding mala fides or perversity.
- What consequence followed for the contract awarded pursuant to the Division Bench judgment.
Held
- The project owner is best placed to understand its tender requirements. A different judicial interpretation alone does not justify intervention; technical expertise and assessment deserve deference unless the process or interpretation is arbitrary, mala fide, perverse or designed to favour a bidder. (¶ 9–10)
- All three expert committees found the respondent ineligible. The Division Bench expressly found no mala fides and identified no perversity, yet substituted its own eligibility conclusion. That technical reassessment exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review. (¶ 11)
- The appellant’s offer to match the respondent’s quoted price was recorded. The contract awarded to the respondent on the basis of the erroneous Division Bench judgment was set aside and the appellant’s award restored; the employer could accept the price-matching offer. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. Division Bench judgment and subsequent rival contract award set aside; Single Judge judgment and appellant’s tender award restored, with liberty to the employer to accept the appellant’s offer to match the rival price.