As per the case facts, a tender for tablets required a specific past performance criterion. The writ petitioner's bid was rejected because they included past supplies of smartphones and power ... banks to meet the tablet supply requirement, which was deemed erroneous. The High Court had allowed the writ petition, overturning the tender authority's decision. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to challenge the High Court's interference with an expert technical evaluation in a tender process. The question arose whether a High Court, under judicial review, should second-guess an expert committee's technical evaluation in a tender process, especially when other bidders correctly understood the requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the High Court allowed the writ petition on irrelevant considerations and set aside the impugned order. It reiterated that judicial review of administrative actions in tender matters aims to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides, rather than assessing the "soundness" of the decision. The Court emphasized that expert evaluations, particularly technical ones, should not be second-guessed by a writ court. The appeals were allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed.