Skip to content

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tangedco) Rep. by Its Chairman Managing Director and Anr. etc. versus Csepdi - Trishe Consortium, Rep. by Its Managing Director & Anr.

(2017) 4 SCC 318cited in 59 judgementsfollowed or applied in 33

Read the judgement · Every citing judgement, by treatment

How later courts have used it

AI overview
  • Judicial review of tender decisions is confined to the decision-making process—illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety—not the merits.1,2
  • Courts will not second-guess technical or financial evaluations by experts or the tender authority unless the decision is mala fide, arbitrary or perverse.3,4,5
  • The author of tender documents is the best interpreter of them; a bidder relying on prior contracts must show successful execution.5
  • An aggrieved bidder must exhaust the statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Tender Transparency Act before invoking writ jurisdiction.6,7
  • Challenges raised late after bid opening may be disregarded, especially where a prima facie case is absent and intervention would harm the public supply chain.8
  • Rejection of a bid can be set aside where the tender clauses were in fact satisfied, as with an integrity pact signed by a power-of-attorney holder.9,10,11,12
Read the full overview· 3 paragraphs

The judgements here repeatedly apply the authority for a narrow, restraint-based judicial review of tender and contractual decisions: courts examine the decision-making process for arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, but do not sit in appeal over the merits or substitute their own view for that of technical experts or the tendering authority. In complex economic and fiscal evaluations, the capacity and efficiency of the bidder and the feasibility of completion are left to financial experts, and courts apply a doctrine of restraint. This standard was followed in challenges to spectrum auction conditions, where classification and capping of bidders were upheld as rational policy devices serving public and consumer interest over individual interests.3,4,1,13,14

Several High Court decisions applied the same principle to uphold tender evaluations: the author of the tender documents is the best person to interpret them, and a technical evaluation will not be second-guessed unless it is mala fide, arbitrary or perverse; a bidder relying on prior experience must show the contract was successfully executed. Madras High Court dismissed challenges where the petitioner had bypassed the statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Tender Transparency Act or where the tender process had already advanced, holding that intervention could cause confusion and harm the public supply chain. In some of these cases the court expressly declined to determine GST applicability or comparative price competitiveness under Article 226. Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL against an emergency medical services tender, deferring to a process shaped by expert committees and a multi-member tender committee.5,6,8,7,1,2,13

The authority was also cited in contexts beyond tenders, such as fee fixation by a statutory committee, where the court likewise refused to act as an appellate authority and interfered only with the decision-making process. However, one Bombay High Court judgment allowed a writ petition against the rejection of technical bids, finding that the signing of an integrity pact by a power-of-attorney holder satisfied the tender clauses and that the rejection was not sustainable. This shows that courts will interfere where the prescribed conditions are met and the rejection is found to be arbitrary or not in line with the tender requirements, even while generally applying the restraint principle.3,9,10,11,12,15,16

Sample is heavily drawn from Bombay High Court orders of 2025 (including several near-duplicate headnotes), with several Madras HC decisions; only a few Supreme Court authorities are included, and most are either dismissals or one-line restraint-based rulings. Machine-written from the headnotes of the judgements on this page; numbers link to the source judgements. Not legal advice — read the judgements before relying on them.

Citing judgements

All 59, by treatment

The most-cited judgements that cite it, with how each treated it.

  1. Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association versus State of Telangana and Others

    Supreme Court1 Jul 20192019 INSC 705Arun Mishra

    TAFRC fee fixation judicial review; substitution versus remand; deference to expert bodies in economic matters; decision-making process not merits; arbitrariness irrationality perversity; Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act 1983 s.15 ss.3 7;

    AllowedRelied on
    Open

  2. Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. - Titagarh Wagons Ltd. through Authorized Signatory, Titagarh Towers, 756, Anandapur, E. M. Bypass, Kolkata- 700 07, West Bengal versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Nmrcl) Having Its Head Office at Metro House, Bungalow No. 28/2, Anand Nagar, C.K. Naidu Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur through Its General Manager (Procurement) & Anr.

    Supreme Court9 May 20172017 INSC 460Dipak Misra

    Judicial review of government contract award; judicial restraint; Wednesbury reasonableness; arbitrariness, bias, mala fides; tender eligibility criteria; Clause 4.1 'Government owned entity'; wholly-owned subsidiaries' experience; single entity vs JV/consortium;

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  3. Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Anr. versus Union of India & Anr.

    Supreme Court12 Jan 20172017 INSC 1254Dipak Misra

    Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., Transfer Case (Civil) No. 43 of 2015 (with T.C.(C) Nos. 64-65 of 2015), Supreme Court of India, decided 12 January 2017 by Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ. (judgment by Dipak Misra, J.). Search terms: spectrum auction March 2015; NIA 2015 dated 9.1.2015;

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  4. Asian Energy Services and Anr. Vs Oil India Ltd. and Anr.

    Gauhati HC9 Feb 2022WP(C)/6503/2021Devashis Baruah

    Challenge to rejection of a technical bid and award of a high-density 3D seismic data acquisition contract. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the tendering authority's interpretation of the experience clauses was neither mala fide nor perverse, and that technical evaluation or comparison by the…

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  5. Ajmal Ahmed R., Vs Union of India

    Kerala HC17 Sept 2021WP(C)/12508/2021S.manikumar Shaji P.chaly

    Closure of government dairy farms and removal of meat and chicken from Lakshadweep's school midday meal menu were challenged. The Court found no arbitrariness or illegality in either policy decision and dismissed the petition, holding that the meal scheme requires nutritional adequacy rather than particular food items.

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  6. K.S.Srinivasan Vs the Director

    Madras HC13 Oct 2017WP(MD)/18059/2016K. Kalyanasundaram

    The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by a rejected tenderer seeking to quash a tender notice. The court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the notification itself after his technical bid was rejected and failed to approach the appellate authority under the…

    DismissedApplied
    Open
Show 6 more

  1. M/Smaturity Materials Vs the Managing Director

    Madras HC9 Jun 2017WMP(MD)/7747/2017K. Kalyanasundaram

    The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reconsidered an interim order suspending a tender for procuring dhal for the Public Distribution System. The court held that maintaining the status quo before bid opening would paralyze the system and was not in public interest.

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  2. Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Bombay HC25 Apr 2025WP/13976/2024M. S. Karnik

    Bombay High Court (Judgment per Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, with M.S. Karnik, J.) allowed W.P. No. 13976 of 2024 filed by Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL), lead member and constituted attorney of Thakur-EVRASCON JV, against rejection of its technical bids by the Tender Committee of CIDCO (minutes/e-mail dated…

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  3. Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Bombay HC9 Apr 2025WP/13976/2024M. S. Karnik

    Bombay High Court (Judgment per Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, with M.S. Karnik, J.) allowed W.P. No. 13976 of 2024 filed by Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL), lead member and constituted attorney of Thakur-EVRASCON JV, against rejection of its technical bids by the Tender Committee of CIDCO (minutes/e-mail dated…

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  4. Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Bombay HC27 Mar 2025WP/13976/2024M. S. Karnik

    Bombay High Court (Judgment per Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, with M.S. Karnik, J.) allowed W.P. No. 13976 of 2024 filed by Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL), lead member and constituted attorney of Thakur-EVRASCON JV, against rejection of its technical bids by the Tender Committee of CIDCO (minutes/e-mail dated…

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  5. Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Bombay HC11 Feb 2025WP/13976/2024M. S. Karnik

    Bombay High Court (Judgment per Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, with M.S. Karnik, J.) allowed W.P. No. 13976 of 2024 filed by Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL), lead member and constituted attorney of Thakur-EVRASCON JV, against rejection of its technical bids by the Tender Committee of CIDCO (minutes/e-mail dated…

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  6. M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Vs The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation

    Madras HC28 Feb 2020WP/24412/2019C.v. Karthikeyan

    Bidders challenged acceptance of a zero-GST bid for housekeeping and security services at government medical institutions. The court declined to substitute itself for the tender authority or determine GST applicability, noted the unavailed statutory appeal, and dismissed both petitions with costs.

    DismissedFollowed
    Open