Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
A2Z ENGINEERS & PILE FOUNDATIONS – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER CUM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – Respondent
WA NO.1308/2026 | WP(C) NO.18258/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida, Lakshmi Sreedhar, P. Parvathy, Pooja Chandran, T. J. Jubil
For the Respondents: P. Sreekumar, Amal Parthasarathy
Technical eligibility criteria in tenders are mandatory; the provision to outsource specialized components to third parties during execution does not exempt a bidder from meeting the specific experience requirements for 'similar work' during the technical qualification stage.
Headnote:The appellant, a contractor, challenged the rejection of its technical bid for the construction of a hostel building for IIT Palakkad under an EPC Mode-III tender. The bid was disqualified because one of the three required qualifying works did not include lift installation, thus failing to meet the definition of 'similar work' as per the tender conditions. The appellant contended that lift installation is a specialized work that can be executed through an approved agency, and therefore, its absence in one qualifying work should not lead to disqualification. The primary issue was whether the mandatory eligibility criteria regarding 'similar work' could be interpreted purposively to allow the exclusion of specialized components if the tender permits the engagement of specialized agencies for execution. The court reasoned that express stipulations regarding qualification in a tender document are mandatory and must be strictly met. The ability to engage a specialized agency for the actual execution of a component does not waive the requirement for the bidder to possess the requisite experience in 'similar work' during the technical evaluation stage. The Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
WA NO. 1308 OF 2026
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.18258/2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 18th June 2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18258 of 2026. Appellant herein was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C). Respondents were the respondents therein.
The appellant, an enlisted contractor under the Central Public Works Department had filed the W.P.(C) challenging the rejection of its bid for an Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC Mode-III) invited by the 2nd respondent. The work concerned the construction of permanent campus for IIT, Palakkad under phase B SH. Construction of a 750 Bedded Hostel building (K03) with facilities including internal water supply, sanitary installations, drainage , underground sump, internal/external electrical installations, firefighting and manual fire alarm system, lifts, VRF AC, mechanical ventilation etc. Appellant’s bid was rejected at the technical qualification stage stating that it did not meet the eligibility criteria. The W.P.(C) was hence filed by the appellant seeking the following relief’s:
i. “issue writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same insofar as it disqualifies the petitioner with respect of the tender covered by Exhibit P1 Notice Inviting Tender;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner and award the works to the petitioner, if the petitioner is lowest bidder with respect of the works covered by Exhibit P1 tender;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction declaring that the petitioner is fully technically qualified for the work covered by Exhibit P1 NIT; and
iv. grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fir on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”
The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the reasons stated for rejection of the appellant’s bid was valid and proper and that the tendering authority is the final authority and the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is very limited. Aggrieved appellant is before us with this appeal.
Heard Mr.Deepu Thankan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.P.Sreekumar, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr.Amal Parthasaradhy, CGC, for the respondents.
On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the tender conditions as a whole and in their proper perspective. It is contended that the rejection of the appellant's bid was founded solely on the premise that one of the three qualifying works did not include the lift installation component. Lift installation, it is submitted, is admittedly a specialised work and not intended to be executed by the principal contractor himself. It is submitted that eligibility condition must be given a purposive and ‘commercial interpretation’ and that once the tender permits execution through specialised agencies, previous execution of lift work by the principal contractor cannot be treated as an indispensable eligibility condition.
According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the tender conditions themselves contemplate that the lift installation work may be executed through an approved specialized agency. Since Clause 7 of Part III, Schedule B of the tender conditions expressly provide that where the main contractor is not eligible to execute a specialized component of the work, he can engage an approved specialized agency of repute after obtaining the approval of the Engineer-in-Charge and further proceeds to prescribe the procedure for obtaining such approval and
