Civil Appeal No. 2068 of 2014 · Supreme Court of India

2.1 Once the Government had known that the entire issue regarding the validity of the process adopted by DMRC including the transparency and fairness of the process of evaluation of the bids was sub judice before the High Court and later before this Court, it ought to have C kept its hands off and let the law take its course. It could have doubt{ess placed all such material as was relevant, before judicial pronouncement on the subject instead of starting a parallel exercise. The Government could even approach the High Court and seek its permission to review the process of evaluation either by itself or through an expert Committee if it felt that any such process would help the court in determining the issues falling for consideration before the court more effectively. Nothing of that sort E was, however, done. On the contrary even when the Secretary to the MoUD pointed out that the matter is subjudice and any further action in the matter could await the pronouncement of the court, the Minister heading MoUD directed the constitution of the Committee. [para 26] (850-E-H; 851-A] F 0

2.2 The terms of reference give a clear indication that the process initiated by the Government w.as a parallel process of the adjudication of the very same issue as fell for consideration before the High Court and at a later G stage before this Ccurt. The. Government could not have done this. Continuance of the process of review even after the High Court had delivered its judgfT!ent amounted to subjecting the judicial pronouncement to an administrative review. There was no question of any H 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A such judicial determination or adjudication being subjected to any administrative review albeit in the name of a Committee constituted for the purpose. [para 27] [851-B-C, F-G] 8

2.3 Suffice it to say fhat the Government ought to have stayed its hands once the matter landed in the Court. Inasmuch as the Government did nothing of this kind, it did not act properly. [para 28] (852-B]

2.4 Even assuming that the Committee has taken C expert advice regarding the tenability of the GEC values offered by respondent no. 2, it would simply mean that there is a conflict between the views taken by the experts of DMRC and those consulted by the Committee. Any such conflict cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise D of its powers of judicial review. So long as the view taken by the experts of the authority competent to take a final decision is a possible view, the very fact that some other experts have expressed doubts about the sustainability of the GEC values will not be enough to declare that the E values offered by respondent no. 2 are unachievable. [para 29] (852-E-G] Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCR 1085; N.D. Jayal v. Union oflnOia 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 152 = (2004) 9 SCC 362 - referred to. F

2.5 Besides, the preparation and submission of a report that does not even take the view point of the party affected by it into consideration can hardly provide to this Court a good reason to scuttle the entire process at this G stage when respondent no. 2, the successful bidder, has already taken substantial steps in the direction of executing the works allotted to it. (para 31] [854-A-B]