Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 16.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 23.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 12270/2024, CM APPL. 51012/2024, CM APPL.
51013/2024 and CM APPL. 40438/2025
PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Mr.
Kartik Lahoti, Ms. Vindhya
Mehra, Ms. Praveena Bist, Ms.
Shubheksha Dwivedi, Ms.
Akanksha Soni, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with
Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr.
Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan
Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik,
Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs. for R-
1.
Mr. Paramjeet Benipal, Mr.
Shaurya Dahiya, Advs. for R-2
with ASG Raghuvendra and his
team.
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Sajid Mohammad, Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Mr.
Rohit Kumar Singh, Mrs. P.R
Mala, Mr. Bhishm Pratap
Singh, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr.
Devansh Shekhar, Mr. Paras
Sharma, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 1 of 21

J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance
of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Techno-
Commercial Evaluation Summary dated 06.08.2024 and the Bid
Evaluation Summary dated 08.08.2024, whereby Respondent No.4
has been declared technically qualified and the L1 bidder in respect of
Tender No. 203168C/T/CT/PACKAGE-1 floated by Respondent
No.2. The Petitioner further seeks directions to declare Respondent
No.4 ineligible for participation in the tender process, a restraint
against award of the contract in its favour, and a consequential
direction to award the subject tender to the Petitioner.
2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
is whether the decision of Respondent No.2 in declaring Respondent
No.4 as technically qualified and the L1 bidder, is liable to be
interfered with, on the ground that Respondent No.4 allegedly does
not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under the tender document,
particularly in view of the change in its shareholding and the asserted
lack of access to the technical know-how and experience of the
erstwhile Hamon Group, and, if so, the effect of the admitted position
that a substantial portion of the work under the contract, stated to be
approximately 80%, has already been executed.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 2 of 21

4. Respondent No.2 issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated
09.01.2024 for execution of the “EPCC Package for Cooling Tower
Works (Phase-I and Phase-II) along with associated facilities for Poly
Butadiene Rubber Plant Project” at its Panipat Refinery and
Petrochemical Complex. The bidding process was undertaken through
an open tender on a single-stage two-bid system, comprising a techno-
commercial (unpriced) bid and a financial bid. Respondent No.3 was
engaged as the technical consultant for the purposes of evaluation of
bids submitted in response to the said tender.
5. The Petitioner claims to be a company engaged in the field of
design, engineering and construction of cooling towers and asserts that
it possesses extensive experience in execution of projects in the
power, refinery and industrial sectors, having executed a large number
of projects for public sector undertakings as well as private entities.
6. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India through the Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas. Respondent No.2, Indian Oil Corporation
Limited [hereinafter referred to as „IOCL‟], is the owner of the project
in question and the authority which invited and evaluated the bids.
Respondent No. 3 was engaged by Respondent No.2 as a technical
consultant for the purposes of evaluation of bids. Respondent No.4 is
one of the bidders in the subject tender and has been declared
technically qualified and the L1 bidder.
7. The subject matter of the tender pertains to execution of cooling
tower works. It is not in dispute that cooling towers constitute an
important component in industrial processes and require specialised
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 3 of 21

design and engineering. The Petitioner has emphasised that such
works involve technical expertise and experience; however, the extent
and manner in which such requirements are to be assessed are
governed by the terms and conditions of the tender.
8. Pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 09.01.2024, bids
were invited within the stipulated time, which came to be extended by
way of corrigenda. The bidders were required to submit a techno-
commercial (unpriced) bid as well as a financial bid. The evaluation
process contemplated determination of technical eligibility at the first
stage, followed by opening and evaluation of financial bids of
technically qualified bidders.
9. The tender document, inter alia , prescribed eligibility criteria
under Clause 12.5 relating to commercial experience, which reads as
under:
“12.5 COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE CRITERIA
For experience, the bidder, as a main or as a subcontractor should
have executed/completed at least one or two or three contract(s)
involving similar nature work with minimum value(s) as indicated
below during the last 12 (Twelve) years ending on last day of the
month immediately previous to the month in which last date of bid
submission falls (in case of extended bid submission date, original bid
submission date shall be considered): One “similar” successfully
completed contract valuing not less than the amount equal to INR
72,00,00,000.00
OR
Two “similar” successfully completed contracts each valuing not less
than the amount equal to INR 57,60,00,000.00
OR
Three “similar” successfully completed contracts each valuing not
less than the amount equal to INR 43,20,00,000.00 Date of
Mechanical Completion will be considered as completion date and
that should fall within the qualifying period.
The above values of completed contract(s) shall be exclusive of GST/
Service Tax.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 4 of 21

“Similar” nature of job is as defined at Sr. no.12.5.2
Definition of SIMILAR NATURE OF WORK:
Similar work in Sl. No. 12.5.1 shall mean the work involving
“Design/Detailed Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Pre-
commissioning and Commissioning/ Commissioning Assistance” for
at least one Cooling Tower Works in a Refinery/ Petrochemical/ On
shore Oil or Gas processing facilities/ Offshore Oil or Gas processing
facilities/ LNG facilities/ Fertiliser Sector/ Metallurgy Sector
(Ferrous)/ Power Sector (Except Solar and Wind) / Chemical
Industry.
BOO/BOOT/OBE (Open Book estimate/ Cost Plus) contracts shall
also be acceptable provided, the Engineering, Procurement,
Construction and Pre-commissioning and Commissioning/
Commissioning Assistance portion of the contract is completed.
In case bidder has executed contract(s) comprising of multiple
process units/multiple facilities/installations (including associated
offsite facilities/utilities) under single contract, the value
corresponding to the completed facilities shall be considered to meet
the criteria given in under this clause, provided that the same is
mentioned in the work-order/Completion Certificate/ certified by
Client.
In case bidder has executed contract(s) meeting similar nature of
work as defined above but such contracts also include scope of
operation/maintenance/operation and maintenance/post warranty
maintenance, the value of qualifying work corresponding to only
similar nature of work out of the total value of contract shall be
considered for the purpose of qualification under Cl. 12.5. Value of
work pertaining to operation/maintenance/operation and
maintenance/post warranty maintenance shall NOT be considered for
the purpose of qualification under above clause.
For the reference works, in case the Bidder has used services of
Engineering Sub-Contractor(s) for Design/ Detailed Engineering, the
same shall be considered acceptable and Bidder has to declare details
of such arrangement along with the bid (documentary evidence to be
provided).”
The said clause required that the bidder, either as a main contractor or
as a subcontractor, must have executed or completed one or more
contracts of “similar nature” of specified value within the prescribed
period. The expression “similar nature of work” was defined to
include works involving design, engineering, procurement,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 5 of 21

construction and commissioning of cooling tower systems in specified
industrial sectors. The clause primarily required demonstration of past
execution of similar works of specified value within the prescribed
period. It does not, in express terms, stipulate any requirement
regarding ownership of intellectual property, access to proprietary
technology, or continued association with any particular group or
entity.
10. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 participated in the
tender process. The Petitioner has alleged that Respondent No.4,
despite being ineligible, was permitted to participate and was
subsequently declared technically qualified by Respondent No.2 on
06.08.2024. It is further the case of the Petitioner that Respondent
No.4 was thereafter declared the L1 bidder on 08.08.2024.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
11. Contentions of the Petitioner:
11.1. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner assailed the impugned
decision primarily on the ground that Respondent No.4 does not
possess the requisite technical capability and experience, in its present
form, to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under the tender
document, and yet came to be declared technically qualified and the
L1 bidder by Respondent No.2. It is contended that Respondent No.4
has undergone a fundamental change in its corporate structure and
technical capabilities, and therefore cannot legitimately rely upon its
past experience to meet the eligibility requirements. On this basis, it is
urged that the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 6 of 21

is contrary to the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender.
11.2. In this regard, the Petitioner has referred to the historical
background of Respondent No.4. It is submitted that Respondent No.
4 was earlier part of the global Hamon Group, Belgium, and had
executed projects, including the Mangalore Refinery project (2009-
2013), as part of a joint venture with Shriram EPC Limited, utilising
the proprietary technology, intellectual property and technical know-
how of the Hamon Group. It is further contended that in or about the
year 2022, the Hamon Group underwent insolvency proceedings in
Belgium, pursuant to which its assets, including intellectual property,
technical know-how and associated rights, came to be acquired by the
John Cockerill Group. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4
was not part of the entities so acquired, and consequently stood
severed from the Hamon Group.
11.3. Learned senior counsel submits that, as a consequence of the
aforesaid restructuring and change in shareholding, Respondent No. 4
no longer has access to the intellectual property, proprietary
technology or technical expertise of the Hamon Group, which,
according to the Petitioner, formed the basis of execution of the earlier
projects. It is contended that Respondent No. 4 has itself admitted in
its pleadings that no intellectual property or proprietary data of the
Hamon Group was transferred to it. On this premise, it is urged that
Respondent No. 4 is not entitled to rely upon the experience of
projects executed during the period when it was associated with the
Hamon Group, as such experience was, according to the Petitioner,
dependent upon technology and know-how which is no longer
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 7 of 21

available to it.
11.4. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 has, in effect,
relied upon the Mangalore Refinery project of 2013 to declare
Respondent No. 4 as technically qualified. According to the Petitioner,
such reliance is misplaced, as the said project was neither executed
under the present management nor with the current technical
capabilities of Respondent No. 4. It is submitted that permitting
Respondent No. 4 to rely upon such past experience would defeat the
very purpose of prescribing eligibility criteria under the tender, which
is to ensure that only technically competent entities are entrusted with
execution of specialised works.
11.5. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 failed to take into
account material and relevant information placed before it, including
communications addressed by the Petitioner as well as by the John
Cockerill Hamon Group, wherein it was specifically stated that
Respondent No. 4 does not possess the right to use the credentials or
technological know-how of the erstwhile Hamon Group. Despite
being put to notice of these facts, Respondent No. 2 proceeded to
declare Respondent No. 4 as technically qualified.
11.6. It was further contended that the financial bid submitted by
Respondent No. 4 is abnormally low and liable to be rejected in terms
of Clause 5.6.4 of the Manual for Procurement of Works, 2019 issued
by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government
of India, which provides for scrutiny and possible rejection of
abnormally low bids. It was submitted that Respondent No. 4‟s bid of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 8 of 21

approximately Rs. 93.86 crores, as against the estimated cost of
approximately Rs. 144 crores, is indicative of predatory pricing and
ought to have invited closer scrutiny by Respondent No. 2. It was
further contended that Respondent No. 2 has failed to deal with this
aspect despite specific objections raised by the Petitioner.
11.7. It is also contended that Respondent No. 2 has sought to justify
the eligibility of Respondent No. 4 by referring to material and
developments subsequent to the submission of bids, which, according
to the Petitioner, is impermissible and indicative of a flawed decision-
making process.
11.8. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed upon decisions of the Supreme Court, inter alia, in New
1
Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India , to contend that judicial review is
warranted where the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational or
suffers from procedural impropriety.
12. Contentions of the Respondents:
12.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondents have opposed
the present Petition and supported the impugned decision. It was
submitted that the challenge raised by the Petitioner is misconceived
and is founded on an erroneous understanding of the tender conditions
as well as the technical capabilities of Respondent No.4. It was
contended that a substantial portion of the work under the subject
contract has already been executed, and according to the Respondents,
approximately 80% of the work stands completed. It was submitted

1
(1995) 1 SCC 478
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 9 of 21

that any interference at this stage would adversely impact the project
and be contrary to public interest.
(A) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 (IOCL):
12.2. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the bids
received pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender were evaluated strictly
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document. It
was contended that the evaluation was undertaken by Respondent
No.2, being the owner of the project, with the assistance of
Respondent No.3 as its technical consultant, and that Respondent No.4
was found to be technically and commercially qualified upon due
evaluation in terms of Clauses 12.3 and 12.5 of the tender document.
12.3. It was further submitted that, upon receipt of complaints
questioning the eligibility of Respondent No.4, Respondent No.2
undertook an enquiry, both directly and through its technical
consultant, into the validity of such allegations. According to
Respondent No.2, the outcome of the said exercise indicated that
Respondent No.4 possessed the requisite technical expertise and
capability to execute the subject works, and the decision to declare it
technically qualified was taken after due consideration of all relevant
material.
12.4. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.2, being the
authority inviting the tender, is the best judge of its requirements and
of the suitability of bidders. It was contended that the scope of judicial
review in such matters is limited to examining the decision-making
process and does not extend to re-evaluating the technical or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 10 of 21

commercial merits of the bids.
12.5. On the financial aspect, it was submitted that Respondent No.4
emerged as the lowest bidder and that there exists a substantial
difference between its bid and that of the Petitioner, resulting in
significant savings to the public exchequer. It was contended that
acceptance of such a bid is in public interest and cannot be faulted
merely on the ground that it is lower than the estimated cost.
(B) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.4 (Successful
Bidder):
12.6. Learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.4, while
adopting the submissions of Respondent No.2, further contended that
Respondent No.4 fully satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under
the tender and has been rightly declared technically qualified and the
L1 bidder.
12.7. It was submitted that the principal contention of the Petitioner,
namely that Respondent No.4 is disentitled from relying upon its past
experience on account of a change in shareholding, is misconceived. It
was contended that a company is a separate and distinct legal entity,
independent of its shareholders, and its experience, credentials and
past performance are not extinguished merely on account of a change
in ownership or shareholding.
12.8. It was further contended that Respondent No.4 has a long-
standing presence in the field of cooling tower engineering and
continues to possess the necessary technical expertise, infrastructure
and manpower. It was submitted that Respondent No.4 has on its rolls
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 11 of 21

a substantial number of engineers and technical personnel and is
engaged in execution of multiple projects, thereby demonstrating its
continued operational capability.
12.9. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No.4 refuted the
Petitioner‟s contention regarding absence of access to the intellectual
property or proprietary technology of the Hamon Group. It was
submitted that the design and engineering of cooling towers is an
established engineering discipline and not dependent upon any
exclusive proprietary technology. According to Respondent No.4, it
possesses its own design tools, methodologies and technical know-
how and does not require any technology of the erstwhile Hamon
Group for execution of the subject work.
12.10. It was further contended that the objections raised by the
Petitioner, including reliance upon communications from the John
Cockerill Hamon Group, are misplaced. According to Respondent
No.4, such entities are not privy to the internal arrangements of
Respondent No.4 and their views cannot be determinative of its
eligibility. It was also contended that such assertions are motivated
and cannot override the independent assessment carried out by
Respondent No.2.
12.11. It was submitted that Respondent No.4 had duly disclosed all
relevant information relating to its experience, technical capability and
past projects as part of its bid, and the same were evaluated by
Respondent No.2. It was contended that the reliance placed on past
projects, including the Mangalore Refinery project, is in accordance
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 12 of 21

with the tender conditions.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties, perused the material placed on record, and
examined the relevant provisions of the tender document. The
controversy in the present Petition lies in a narrow compass and
pertains to the legality and validity of the decision-making process
adopted by Respondent No.2 in declaring Respondent No.4 as
technically qualified and the L1 bidder.
14. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of judicial
review in matters relating to award of public contracts. It is well
settled that the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over
decisions taken by the tendering authority. The scope of interference
is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is
vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or procedural
impropriety, or is in violation of the terms of the tender.
15. The law in this regard stands crystallised in a catena of
decisions, including Tata Cellular v. Union of India , Jagdish
Mandal v. State of Orissa , and subsequent judgments, which
emphasise that the authority inviting tenders is the best judge of its
requirements and the suitability of bidders. Interference is warranted
only where the process adopted is found to be manifestly arbitrary or
actuated by mala fide s.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 13 of 21

Re: Nature of Eligibility Criteria:
16. The principal contention of the Petitioner rests on the assertion
that Respondent No. 4 is not entitled to rely upon its past experience,
particularly the Mangalore Refinery project (2009-2013), on account
of a change in its shareholding and the alleged loss of access to the
intellectual property and technical know-how of the erstwhile Hamon
Group.
17. In this context, it becomes necessary to examine the eligibility
criteria prescribed under the tender document. Clause 12.5, which
deals with commercial experience, requires that the bidder must have
executed or completed one or more contracts of “similar nature” of
specified value within the prescribed period. The definition of “similar
nature of work” focuses on the nature of activities performed, namely,
design, engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of
cooling tower systems in specified sectors.
18. Significantly, the said clause does not stipulate that the bidder
must demonstrate continued ownership of any particular intellectual
property, proprietary technology, or technical collaboration. Nor does
it mandate that the experience relied upon must have been gained
under the same management or shareholding structure. In the absence
of any such express stipulation in the tender conditions, the eligibility
of a bidder is required to be assessed on the basis of the experience of
the bidder as a corporate entity, and not on the basis of continuity of
its shareholding or its association with a particular group.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 14 of 21

Re: Effect of Change in Shareholding / Corporate Structure:
19. The Petitioner has emphasised that Respondent No.4 has
undergone a substantial change in its shareholding and is no longer
part of the Hamon Group. It has been contended that such change
disentitles Respondent No.4 from relying upon past experience.
20. This contention, however, does not merit acceptance in the facts
of the present case. A company, in law, is a separate and distinct
juristic entity, independent of its shareholders. The experience,
credentials and past performance of a company are attributes of the
corporate entity itself and do not stand extinguished merely upon a
change in its shareholding, unless the tender conditions expressly
stipulate to the contrary.
21. No such condition is shown to exist in the present tender. The
reliance placed by the Petitioner on the change in shareholding,
therefore, cannot, by itself, render Respondent No. 4 ineligible.
Re: Loss of Access to Technology / Know-how:
22. The next limb of the Petitioner‟s argument is that Respondent
No.4 no longer has access to the proprietary technology and
intellectual property of the Hamon Group, which was allegedly
utilised for execution of earlier projects.
23. In this regard, it is noted that Respondent No.4 has taken a
categorical stand that it possesses independent technical capability,
design expertise and engineering resources, and does not require
reliance on any proprietary technology of the Hamon Group for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 15 of 21

execution of cooling tower projects. Respondent No.2 has also, upon
enquiry, accepted the said position. It is further relevant that
Respondent No.2, in its technical assessment, has observed that the
design and engineering of cooling towers is not confined to any
exclusive proprietary domain, but constitutes a well-established
engineering discipline.
24. In such circumstances, the question as to whether Respondent
No. 4 possesses adequate technical capability is essentially a matter of
technical evaluation, falling within the domain of the tendering
authority. This Court, in exercise of judicial review, would not
substitute its own assessment for that of the expert body, unless the
conclusion arrived at is shown to be perverse or wholly untenable. No
material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the assessment
made by Respondent No.2 is either arbitrary or lacking in bona fides .
Re: Reliance on Mangalore Refinery Project:
25. The Petitioner has also contended that Respondent No.2 has
relied solely upon the Mangalore Refinery project (2009-2013) to
declare Respondent No.4 as technically qualified, and that such
reliance is misplaced.
26. Even assuming that the said project formed a substantial basis
for evaluation, the same cannot be faulted, as the tender conditions
expressly permit reliance on past completed works of similar nature
within the prescribed period. The tender does not require that such
work must have been executed under the present management or with
a particular technology. Once it is established that the project satisfies
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 16 of 21

the criteria of “similar nature of work” and falls within the qualifying
period, the reliance thereon cannot be said to be contrary to the tender
conditions.
Re: Consideration of Complaints / Application of Mind:
27. The record indicates that objections were raised by the
Petitioner as well as communications were addressed by third parties,
including the John Cockerill entity, regarding the eligibility of
Respondent No.4.
28. Respondent No.2 has stated that, upon receipt of such
complaints, it undertook an enquiry, both independently and through
its technical consultant (Respondent No.3), and thereafter arrived at a
considered decision regarding the eligibility of Respondent No.4. The
mere fact that Respondent No.2 did not accept the objections raised by
the Petitioner does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind.
Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the
correctness of the decision.
Re: Abnormally Low Bid
29. In order to examine the Petitioner‟s contention regarding the
abnormally low financial bid submitted by the Respondent No.4, and
the submission that the same was liable to be rejected in terms of
Clause 5.6.4 of the Manual for Procurement of Works, 2019 , it
becomes necessary to consider the scope and applicability of the said
Procurement Manual. The Manual, issued by the Department of
Expenditure, lays down a guiding framework for public procurement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 17 of 21

and, inter alia , contemplates that in cases of abnormally low bids, the
procuring entity may seek appropriate clarifications from the bidder to
satisfy itself as to the workability of the bid and the bidder‟s capacity
to perform the contract. However, the said framework does not
mandate automatic rejection of a bid merely on the ground that it is
lower than the estimated cost, and its application must be seen in the
context of the specific terms of the tender and the discretion vested in
the procuring authority. In the present case, no provision of the tender
document has been brought to the notice of this Court which requires
outright rejection of a bid solely on account of it being lower than the
estimated value.
30. The mere fact that a bid is substantially lower than the
estimated cost does not ipso facto render it liable to rejection. What is
required to be examined is whether the bid is so unworkable or
unrealistic as to give rise to a legitimate doubt regarding the bidder‟s
ability to execute the contract. Such an assessment lies primarily
within the domain of the procuring entity. In the present case,
Respondent No. 2 has accepted the bid of Respondent No. 4 upon
evaluation, and no material has been placed before this Court to
demonstrate either that the bid is incapable of execution or that
Respondent No. 2 failed to undertake any scrutiny in this regard. In
the absence of any such material, the decision cannot be said to be
arbitrary merely on account of the price differential.
Re: Subsequent Developments
31. The Petitioner has also objected to reliance on subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 18 of 21

contracts or developments. While it is correct that eligibility must be
assessed as on the date of submission of bids, reference to subsequent
material, if any, only for the limited purpose of corroborating the
existing technical capability of the bidder, does not, in the facts of the
present case, vitiate the decision-making process.
32. It is also relevant to note that the Petitioner has not placed any
material on record to demonstrate that Respondent No. 2 failed to
undertake any scrutiny whatsoever of the financial bid or that the bid
was accepted mechanically without application of mind. In matters
relating to financial evaluation, a certain degree of latitude is required
to be accorded to the procuring entity, particularly where the decision
is informed by commercial considerations, including cost efficiency
and public interest.
Re: Advanced Stage of Project:
33. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court, and not
disputed before us, that a substantial portion of the work, stated to be
approximately 80%, has already been completed.
34. While this factor is not determinative of the legality of the
initial decision, it is nonetheless relevant while considering the nature
of relief that may be granted, particularly in matters involving public
projects and large-scale infrastructure works. At this advanced stage,
interference with the tender process or the contract awarded pursuant
thereto would not only be wholly impracticable but would also be
contrary to public interest, as it may lead to serious disruption of an
ongoing project of significant public importance.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 19 of 21

Re: Reliance on New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India:
35. The Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd . (supra) to contend that the
experience and technical capability of a bidder must be assessed with
reference to the entities whose expertise is actually available to it, and
that a mere change in corporate structure or composition may have a
bearing on such assessment.
36. This Court is of the view that the reliance on the said judgment
is misplaced in the facts of the present case. In New Horizons (supra),
the Supreme Court was concerned with a situation where the tendering
authority had taken into account the combined experience of
constituent entities forming a joint venture/consortium while
evaluating the eligibility of a bidder. The said judgment emphasises a
purposive approach to assessing technical capability so as to advance
competition and not restrict it unduly.
37. In the present case, however, the issue is not of aggregation of
experience of multiple entities, but of the entitlement of a corporate
entity to rely upon its own past experience, notwithstanding a change
in its shareholding. As noticed hereinabove, the tender conditions do
not impose any restriction on such reliance, nor do they mandate
continuity of ownership or access to any particular proprietary
technology. In such circumstances, the principle laid down in New
Horizons (supra) does not advance the case of the Petitioner.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 20 of 21

CONCLUSION:
38. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate
that the decision-making process adopted by Respondent No. 2 suffers
from arbitrariness, mala fides , or violation of the tender conditions so
as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
39. The challenge laid by the Petitioner to the Techno-Commercial
Evaluation Summary dated 06.08.2024 and the Bid Evaluation
Summary dated 08.08.2024 is, accordingly, rejected.
40. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out.
The present Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending
applications stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 23, 2026
jai/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:12:36
W.P.(C) 12270/2024 Page 21 of 21