<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (8) TMI 1393 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797519</link>
    <description>Public procurement technical evaluations must follow disclosed, objectively verifiable criteria and include recorded, communicated reasons for scoring and disqualification. A challenge to parameter-wise marks is not barred by res judicata where prior proceedings did not assess undisclosed evaluation material and later disclosure creates a fresh cause of action. Judicial review does not reassess technical merits but examines legality of the decision-making process. Unexplained differential scoring of similar bids, undisclosed comparative standards, absent evaluation summaries and inadequate debriefing violate transparency, equality and fair administrative action. Numerical marks alone do not satisfy requirements to record and communicate reasons. The technical evaluations and resulting tender awards were set aside, requiring fresh lawful and transparent procurement while maintaining public-service continuity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 08:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=918676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1393 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797519</link>
      <description>Public procurement technical evaluations must follow disclosed, objectively verifiable criteria and include recorded, communicated reasons for scoring and disqualification. A challenge to parameter-wise marks is not barred by res judicata where prior proceedings did not assess undisclosed evaluation material and later disclosure creates a fresh cause of action. Judicial review does not reassess technical merits but examines legality of the decision-making process. Unexplained differential scoring of similar bids, undisclosed comparative standards, absent evaluation summaries and inadequate debriefing violate transparency, equality and fair administrative action. Numerical marks alone do not satisfy requirements to record and communicate reasons. The technical evaluations and resulting tender awards were set aside, requiring fresh lawful and transparent procurement while maintaining public-service continuity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>