Public interest in timely consular services outweighs personal commercial interest in immediate disclosure of technical bid scoring breakups.

The Petitioners, various travel technology and IT-enabled service providers, participated in tenders floated by the Ministry of External Affairs for outsourcing Consular/Passport/Visa (CPV) services at several Indian Embassies and High Commissions

The Request for Proposal (RFP) prescribed a two-tier process: technical and financial bids, requiring a minimum qualifying technical score of 70%

The Petitioners were declared "non-qualified" at the technical stage, having failed to reach the threshold

While the total scores were communicated, the Respondents refused to provide a criterion-wise breakup of marks or detailed reasons for the scores during the ongoing tender process, citing policy and confidentiality

The Petitioners challenged these decisions, alleging opacity, violation of General Financial Rules (GFR), and potential cartelization among qualified bidders

1. Whether the Respondents are legally obligated to provide a detailed breakup of marks and specific reasons for technical disqualification during the pendency of the tender process

2. Whether the non-disclosure of evaluation remarks and marks of competitors violates the principles of transparency under Article 14 and the GFR 2017

3. Whether the Court should interfere with the technical evaluation process on grounds of suspected cartelization or perceived subjectivity in marking

The Court applied Rule 173(iv) of the General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017, which mandates the disclosure of reasons for rejecting a tender upon enquiry

It relied on the "Wednesbury principle of reasonableness" and the doctrine of judicial restraint in administrative/contractual matters as established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India

The Court further applied the criteria from Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, holding that judicial review in tenders is limited to checking if a decision is "lawful" rather than "sound," and emphasizing that private interest must yield to public interest

Finally, it followed Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, affirming that the interpretation of tender terms belongs primarily to the author of the document

The Court reasoned that while recording and communicating reasons is a safeguard against arbitrariness and a requirement under GFR Rule 173(iv) and the RFP itself, such rights must be balanced against the "overwhelming public interest" in the timely execution of critical consular services

The Respondents agreed to provide the detailed breakup after the conclusion of the tender process to maintain integrity

The Court found no evidence of mala fides or "perversity writ large" that would justify stalling the procurement of services for the Indian Diaspora

It rejected the challenge to the marking criteria (e.g., "prime location"), noting that relative marking by an expert committee is a standard commercial function where "principles of natural justice stay at a distance"

The allegations of cartelization were dismissed as "premature" since the financial bids were not yet in the public domain

It held that while Petitioners have a right to know the reasons for disqualification, the Respondents' decision to disclose the detailed breakup only after the selection of the successful bidder is a valid exercise of administrative discretion to protect public interest

The Court took on record the ASG’s undertaking that detailed marks and reasons would be provided upon the conclusion of the tender, granting Petitioners liberty to seek legal remedies then if aggrieved

All interim orders were vacated