1. Writ petition challenges technical disqualification in tender for EPC construction of MSME Technology Centre. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Vardhman Probuild Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ircon International Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10386/2026 | CM APPL. 48047/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kiritiman Singh, Sidhartha Barua, Kumar Amav Singh Deo, Taha Yasin, Naman, Rishav, Yasharth Shukla
For the Respondents: Hiral Gupta, Kaushik Moitra, Amrita Prakash, Siddharth Srivastava, Gaurav Khosla
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kiritiman Singh, Sidhartha Barua, Kumar Amav Singh Deo, Taha Yasin, Naman, Rishav, Yasharth Shukla
For the Respondents: Hiral Gupta, Kaushik Moitra, Amrita Prakash, Siddharth Srivastava, Gaurav Khosla
In tender processes, bidders must strictly adhere to Essential Qualification Criteria by providing explicit documentary evidence of experience. Courts exercise limited review, refusing to substitute the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision unless it is arbitrary, and will not allow disqualified bidders to challenge the qualifications of successful bidders.
Headnote:(A) Tender Law - Essential Qualification Criteria (EQC) - Interpretation of 'Similar Works' - Bidders must provide documentary evidence explicitly recording the execution of all components defined as 'similar works'. Logical inferences of completion based on project status reports or scope of work are insufficient if the certificate is silent on specific components. (Para 18, 23)
(B) Tender Law - Submission of Documents - Post-bid submissions - Documents submitted after the bid opening deadline cannot be considered to cure deficiencies in the original technical bid. (Para 24)
(C) Judicial Review - Scope - Limited interference in tender matters - Courts do not sit in appeal over the merits of technical evaluation unless the decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. (Para 33)
(D) Locus Standi - Challenge to other bidders - A disqualified bidder cannot challenge the technical qualifications of other qualified bidders. (Para 35)
Issues: Whether the decision of the TEC of Respondent No. 1, holding that the Petitioner’s experience of Meerut Project fails to satisfy the requirement of bidder experience for ‘substantially completed similar work’ under the EQC, is fair, reasonable and free from arbitrariness.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued its experience satisfied criteria; Respondent contended documents failed to show execution of all required components. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. TEC could not infer completion of Horticulture or HVAC works from submitted documents; Petitioner failed to meet express tender requirements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. Tender evaluation committee's assessment of bid documents is subject to limited judicial review; not arbitrary if based on express criteria. (Para 33 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no interference with TEC decision to disqualify petitioner's bid. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. What is the standard of judicial review in tender matters concerning technical evaluation?
Judicial review is limited to examining if the decision-making process is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or procedurally wrong; not an appeal on merits. (Para 33 )
7. Can a disqualified bidder challenge the qualifications of other bidders in court?
At the instance of a disqualified bidder, the court will refrain from entertaining a challenge to the qualifications of the qualified bidders. (Para 35 )
8. Must a bidder's certificate for a 'substantially completed work' be issued within 60 days of the tender?
The 60-day validity condition applies to a 'Credential Certificate' under Explanation (i), not to a 'Provisional Completion Certificate' under Explanation (iii). (Para 34 )
9. Is a tender evaluation committee required to draw inferences in favor of a bidder from submitted documents?
No. The committee is not expected to undertake a deep-dive investigation or draw inferences; the bidder must ensure its documents unambiguously demonstrate fulfillment of eligibility criteria. (Para 23 , 32 )
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Summary for Technical Evaluation Report dated 24.07.2026 [‘impugned report’] issued by Respondent No.1/IRCON International Limited, whereby the Petitioner has been declared technically disqualified on the ground that the ‘Essential Qualification Criteria requirement of similar work is not fulfilled’.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Respondent No.1 has issued a Notice inviting Tender bearing No. IRCON/B1100009/MSME/e-Tender/EPC/TC Bilaspur/ET50 [‘Tender’] dated 23.01.2026 inviting bids on an Engineering, Procurement and Construction [‘EPC’] basis for the construction of an MSME, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Technology Centre at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, including maintenance during the Defect Liability Period.
3. The estimated cost of the project is Rs. 84 crores inclusive of GST at 18%. The scope of the tender includes construction of RCC framed institutional buildings, electrical works, HVAC, Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning, plumbing, firefighting, water supply, sewerage, external development, horticulture and allied infrastructure works on EPC basis.
4. Under Clause 1 of the Essential Qualification Criteria [‘EQC’], the bidder is required to demonstrate completion or substantial completion of ‘Similar Works’ during the preceding seven (7) years satisfying any one of the following three alternatives:
• three similar completed works each costing not less than Rs. 25.20 crore;
• two similar completed works each costing not less than Rs. 33.60 crore each, or
• one similar completed work costing not less than Rs. 50.40 crore.
The bidder is required to submit documentary evidence in the form of the completion certificate clearly mentioning execution of the components set out in the definition of the ‘Similar Works’. For proving eligibility through execution of a ‘substantially completed work’, the Tender recognised two [2] independent methods by which a bidder could satisfy the eligibility under the EQC. While Explanation (i) to the EQC defined a ‘substantially completed work’ as an ongoing work in which at least 90% of the contract value had been paid and no termination proceedings had been initiated, the bidder was required to submit a Credential Certificate in this regard issued not before 60 days of the date of invitation of the present Tender, to prove the execution of the components mentioned in the definition of ‘Similar Works’. Explanation (iii) to the EQC separately provided an option to the bidder to the effect that if a Provisional Completion Certificate has been issued by the concerned organization for the ‘substantially completed work’, the said Certificate would be considered for evaluating fulfilment of the credentials required as per the definition of ‘Similar Works’, subject to the value of work actually paid for by the client. Thus, Explanation (i) and (iii) enabled the bidder to produce either a Credential Certificate or a Provisional Completion Certificate for a ‘substantially completed similar work’, however, either Certificate must clearly record execution of the components set out in the definition of ‘Similar Works’.5. The Respondent No. 1 has declared the Petitioner’s bid as technically disqualified, holding ‘EQC requirement of similar work was not fulfilled’ vide impugned report dated 24.07.2026. Aggrieved therefrom, Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the said impugned report.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
6. Mr. Kirtiman, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner relied upon the execution of the EPC project awarded by the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department for construction of Non-Residential buildings of the Police Training School at Meerut [‘Meerut Project’] to qualify the criteria of substantially completed ‘Similar Works’ as stipulated under EQC at Annexure V. He stated that the sa
