Judicial review of tender decisions should respect the expertise of evaluation committees unless evidence of arbitrariness or unreasonableness is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

This writ petition is submitted by a registered contractor being aggrieved by the proposal to finalize the bidding process notified as per Ext.P1, in favour of the 3^rd respondent, as according to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent is not possessing the necessary qualification as contemplated in the notice inviting tender (NIT).

2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents published a tender notification dated 30.10.2025, inviting bids for carrying out the work “KIIFB-AIRPORT LINK-IMPROVEMENTS TO CHORUKALA- BAVUPARAMBA- MANICHERIKADAU-CHEKKIYATTUKAVUMAYYIL - ETTEYAR KOLOLAM- CHALODE ROAD KM 0/000 TO 22/550 AND TALIPARAMBA TAGORE VIDYANIKETHAN-ALLAMKULAM-SIRSYED COLLEGE- BRANDHANKUNNU ROAD KM 0/000 TO 2/660 IN KANNUR DISTRICT” The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent along with some other persons submitted tenders in respect of the same. In the said tender process, when the financial bids were evaluated, the petitioner was declared as L2 whereas, the 3^rd respondent was declared as L1. Exhibit P3 is the result published on 18.12.2025.

3. According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements regarding the qualification as contemplated in Ext.P1-NIT and Ext.P2 tender documents published by the 1^st respondent, the 3^rd respondent did not qualify the said requirements on several grounds. In the writ petition, the petitioner highlighted the discrepancies with regard to the qualifications of the 3^rd respondent, which are as follows:

(i) The 3rd respondent failed to show the previous experience as contemplated under clause 2.2. of the tender documents, which provided previous experience to the tune of 40% of the value of the current work as an essential pre-qualification which must have been in relation to a work conducted by the bidder as a prime contractor for Government/semi Government clients during the last five years ending last day of the month previous to the month in which the bid applications are invited. According to the petitioner, as per the bid documents submitted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P4, the experience certificate dated 10.11.2025 was produced. The same contains two works namely; (1) Rebuild Kerala Initiative (RKI-12) Upgrading of Uruvachal-Manakkai_Valayal-Keezhallur- Therur- Palayod- Vallaparamba – Karimbala – Kodoliparam- Cholakkari Nerammal – Maruthayi Road (Total 18.46 km) in Kannur District on EPC Mode- executed under Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. (EPI) with an accepted PAC of Rs.98.91 crore and 97.15% completion, performance rated as Good and (2) KIIFB – Improvements to Meppadi-Chooramala Road in Wayanad District- executed under KRFB-PMU (Agreement No.56/PWD004- 103/PD.PMU-KRFB/2018-19 dated 5.11.2018) with a sanctioned PAC of Rs.39.23 crore, completed satisfactorily as certified by the Project Director, KRFB). According to the petitioner, the completion certificate produced by the 3rd respondent for the 1st work was only a provisional certificate dated 10.3.2025. As per the same, 97.15% of the work alone was completed and the same was issued subject to the condition that, the contractor has agreed and a