Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Private Limited vs The Executive Engineer And Senior Manager C Iii Redevelopment Project Division Cpwd & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 14.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 21.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 21.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5670/2026, CM APPL. 27916/2026
SWADESHI CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Dinkar Singh and Mr.
Rohit Singh, Advs.
versus
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND SENIOR MANAGER C
III REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DIVISION CPWD & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Seth, SPC with
Mr. Achal Gupta, Ms. Widaphi
Lyngdoh and Ms. Ashima,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the rejection of its
technical bid submitted by it in respect of Notice Inviting Tender
(NIT), NIT- 01/CE cum ED/RPZ/NIT/2025-26, issued by the Central
Public Works Department for redevelopment of the General Pool
Residential Colony at Sriniwaspuri, Package-II, New Delhi.
2. The work in question pertains to construction of 1230 Type-II
residential units, including single basement, G+31 floors, two multi-
level car parking blocks, development works and services, on an EPC
Mode-I basis, together with maintenance and operation of services for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 1 of 22

a period of five years after completion of the original construction
work.
3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its technical bid
on the ground that it did not satisfy the eligibility requirement under
Clause 7.1 of the NIT. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the said
rejection and a consequential direction to the Respondents to treat it as
technically qualified and consider its financial bid.
4. The challenge is not to the validity of Clause 7.1 itself. The
controversy is confined to the manner in which the said clause has
been applied to the Petitioner’s bid. The Petitioner asserts that it
fulfilled the eligibility conditions, particularly the requirement relating
to prior experience in the opted structural system technology. The
Respondents, on the other hand, submit that the Petitioner’s own
documents did not establish such eligibility.
5. The principal issue, therefore, is whether the Respondents’
decision to treat the Petitioner as technically ineligible under Clause
7.1 of the NIT is arbitrary, irrational, perverse, or contrary to the
tender conditions so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
6. Clause 7.1 of the NIT prescribes the initial criteria of eligibility
and the relevant portion of the clause is reproduced as under:-
7. Initial Criteria for Eligibility:
7.1 Bidders who fulfil the following requirements shall be eligible to
apply. Joint ventures/Consortium and Special Purpose Vehicles are
not accepted.
i) Should have satisfactorily completed the following similar works
during last 7 (seven) years ending last day of month previous to the
one in which bids are invited including the extended date, if any. For
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 2 of 22

this purpose, cost of work shall mean gross value of the completed
work including cost of materials supplied by the Government/client
but excluding those supplied free of cost. This should be certified by
an officer not below the rank of Project Manager/ Executive Engineer
& Senior Manager or equivalent.
Three similar completed works each of value not less than
Rs.269.34 Cr.
Or
Two similar completed works each of value not less than Rs.404.02 Cr
Or
One similar completed work of value not less than Rs. 538.69 Cr.
"Similar Work" shall mean:
Work of construction of RCC buildings having minimum one building
of ten storeys (basements and stilt/s shall be counted as storey)
including water supply, sanitary installation, Internal Electrical
installations, firefighting with wet riser system & SITC of lifts in the
same contract of ten storeys or above executed under one agreement
in India. Mumty and Machine Room shall not be counted as storey.
OR
Completing balance construction work (i/c structural work) minimum
upto ten storey (basements and stilt/s shall be counted as storey)
including water supply, sanitary installation, Internal Electrical
installations, firefighting with wet riser system & SITC of lifts in the
same contract of ten storeys or above executed under one agreement
in India Mumty and Machine Room shall not be counted as storey.
Note: -
a) Work of basement, E&M services viz., Internal Electrical
installations, firefighting with wet riser system & SITC of lifts, if
executed under a separate contract shall also be considered for the
purpose of assessing the technical competence only without adding its
monetary value for determining the eligibility criteria.
b) The value of executed works shall be brought to current costing
level by enhancing the actual value of work at simple rate of 7% per
annum, calculated from the date of completion to previous day of last
day of submission of bids.
ii) Should have satisfactorily completed one work with opted
technology as proposed by bidder and mentioned in letter of
transmittal, during the last seven years ending last day of month
previous to the one in which tender is invited. The cost of structural
system executed with opted technology shall not be less than Rs.
134.67 Cr. This work can be part of eligible work at 2(i) above or as a
separate work (In case separate cost of structural system of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 3 of 22

particular technology is not available in the experience certificate, it
will be taken as 30% of completed cost of project/work).
OR
The bidder can associate with contractor having requisite experience
of executing work in structural system with the opted technology.
Bidder has to submit MoU in the prescribed format (Form L) with
such associate contractor. along with his tender, for structural system
in opted technology only. The associated contractor must satisfy the
eligibility criteria of having successfully completed one work of opted
technology having the cost of structural system not less than Rs.
134.67 Cr during the last seven years ending last day of month
previous to the one in which tender is invited In case separate cost of
structural system of a particular technology is not available in the
experience certificate of associated contractor, it will be taken as 30%
of completed cost of project/work
Associated contractor should not have been debarred from any
Ministry or any govt. organization in the last five years.
The value of executed works shall be brought to current costing level
by enhancing the actual value of work at simple rate of 7% per
annum; calculated from the date of completion to previous day of last
day of submission of bids.
7. For the purposes of the present Petition, two requirements are
material. First, the bidder was required to have satisfactorily
completed similar works during the preceding seven years. This
condition could be satisfied by showing three similar completed works
each of value not less than Rs. 269.34 crores; or two similar
completed works each of value not less than Rs. 404.02 crores; or one
similar completed work of value not less than Rs. 538.69 crores.
8. The expression “similar work” is also defined in the NIT. It
required construction of RCC buildings having at least one building of
ten storeys or above, including water supply, sanitary installation,
internal electrical installations, firefighting with wet riser system and
Supply, Installation, Testing, and Commissioning ( SITC) of lifts in
the same contract, executed under one agreement in India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 4 of 22

9. Secondly, Clause 7.1 required the bidder to have satisfactorily
completed one work with the opted technology proposed by the bidder
and mentioned in the Letter of Transmittal. The cost of the structural
system executed with the opted technology was required to be not less
than Rs. 134.67 crores. The clause further provided that, in case the
separate cost of the structural system of a particular technology was
not available in the experience certificate, it would be taken as 30% of
the completed cost of the project/work.
10. Schedule-F of the NIT referred to the list of approved
construction technologies contained in Appendix-III. Item No. 9 under
the category of Cast-in-Situ Structural Systems is “Monolithic
Concrete Construction system using Aluminium Formwork”.
11. In its Letter of Transmittal, the Petitioner declared that it would
use “Monolithic Concrete Construction system using Aluminium
Formwork” in line with Schedule-F of the tender conditions.
12. To establish experience in the opted technology, the Petitioner
relied upon the work relating to construction of the New Block for
Medicine, Maternity and Advanced Paediatric Centre at Lok Nayak
Jai Prakash Narayan (LNJP) Hospital, Delhi. The said project was
described in the Petitioner’s documents as a composite steel and RCC
framed 2B+G+22 storeyed building.
13. The Petitioner relied upon the value of the LNJP Hospital work,
stating that the total work done was Rs. 549.56 crores, which, after
applying 7% enhancement, came to Rs. 611.75 crores. On this basis,
the Petitioner contends that by applying the 30% deeming formula
contained in Clause 7.1, the value of the structural system with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 5 of 22

opted technology would exceed the prescribed threshold of Rs. 134.67
crores.
14. The Petitioner also relied upon Form D-2 issued by the
Executive Engineer, PWD Health Project Division, LNJP Hospital.
The said Form D-2, however, records the “actual date of completion”
as: “The Work was suspended by the PWD on 19.06.2024.” The same
certificate records the type of structural system technology used as
RCC framed structure and Steel framed structure.
15. The Performance Certificate dated 11.03.2026, also issued by
the Executive Engineer, PWD Health, records that the LNJP Hospital
work was suspended on 19.06.2024 by the Department and was
abandoned by the Government under Clause 15. It further records that
due to abandonment, only the structural part was completed up to
95%, flooring was completed up to 30%, the rest of the civil work was
not executed, and no electrical work was completed.
16. The same Performance Certificate describes the structure as a
composite structure consisting of RCC framed structure and steel
framed structure with monolithic construction having aluminium
shuttering. It further records that the plan area was approximately
91,000 square metres, with the steel structure forming part of the main
hospital building and the lift lobby/staircase part involving monolithic
construction with aluminium shuttering.
17. The Petitioner’s bid was rejected through email dated
21.04.2026. The reason communicated was that, as per the NIT, the
bidder was required to have satisfactorily completed one work with
the opted technology of value not less than Rs. 134.67 crores, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 6 of 22

none of the works listed in Form C fulfilled the said criterion. The
communication further stated that, as per the experience certificate
issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Health, the main hospital
building was not a completed work, and the other two works did not
qualify for the said technology.
18. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation seeking
reconsideration. The Respondents issued a detailed communication
dated 25.04.2026, stating, inter alia , that the LNJP Hospital project
could not be treated as a completed similar work, that the composite
structural system relied upon by the Petitioner was not the approved
opted technology, that the components of water supply and sanitary
installation were not found executed at site, that the Performance
Certificate itself recorded only 95% structural completion with
seepage, rusting and pending rectification; and that the other two
works did not independently satisfy the opted technology requirement.
19. The Petitioner has also relied upon the email on 21.04.2026 at
11:26 AM indicating acceptance of its bid. The Respondents have
explained the same as an inadvertent automatic portal-generated
communication and have pointed out that the rejection email was
issued within 4 minutes. It is also not in dispute that Corrigendum No.
8, containing the list of technically qualified bidders on 21.04.2026,
did not include the Petitioner’s name.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
20. Mr. Rajshekar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, submits that the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid is arbitrary,
hyper-technical and contrary to the tender conditions. It is urged that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 7 of 22

the Petitioner had executed work at the LNJP Hospital project of value
far exceeding the original contract value, and that the said work was
abandoned by the Government and not on account of any default
attributable to the Petitioner.
21. It is further submitted that the Petitioner cannot be penalised for
non-completion occasioned by the Government itself. Learned counsel
points out that extension of time had been granted without levy of
compensation, no adverse action was taken against the Petitioner, and
the Executive Engineer itself issued Form D-2 and the Performance
Certificate recognising the execution of work by the Petitioner.
22. Learned senior counsel submits that Clause 7.1 must be read as
a whole. It is urged that the clause uses the expression “completed
cost of project / work”, and that the word “work” has to be given its
due meaning. According to the Petitioner, the LNJP work allotted to it
had been executed by it to the extent permitted by the Tendering
Authority, and the Petitioner cannot be treated as ineligible merely
because the Government subsequently decided to suspend or abandon
the larger project.
23. On the opted technology requirement, learned senior counsel
for the Petitioner submits that the LNJP Hospital project involved
monolithic concrete construction using aluminium formwork. It is
contended that the NIT did not require the opted technology to be the
sole or exclusive technology used in the reference project. According
to the Petitioner, the Respondents have selectively read the certificate
and ignored the portions which refer to monolithic construction using
aluminium shuttering/formwork.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 8 of 22

24. It is also submitted that the Respondents’ objection regarding
the value of the opted technology component is answered by the 30%
deeming formula contained in Clause 7.1. Learned senior counsel
submits that the very purpose of the said formula is to address cases
where the experience certificate does not separately disclose the cost
of the structural system of the particular technology. Once such
separate cost was not available, the Respondents were bound to take
30% of the completed cost of the project/work.
25. Learned senior counsel further submits that if the Respondents
had any doubt regarding the extent or value of the monolithic
aluminium formwork component, they ought to have sought a
clarification either from the Petitioner or from the Executive Engineer
who had issued the certificate. No such clarification was sought.
Instead, the Petitioner was rejected on grounds which, according to it,
are either contrary to the tender or have been subsequently improved
through the detailed rejection communication dated 25.04.2026.
26. Lastly, the Petitioner relies on the acceptance email dated
21.04.2026 at 11:26 AM and submits that the abrupt reversal within
minutes demonstrates lack of transparency and non-application of
mind in the evaluation process.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
27. Mr. Abhishek Seth, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for
the Respondents, submits that the rejection is based on the Petitioner’s
own documents and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Petitioner may
otherwise be an experienced contractor, but the Court is concerned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 9 of 22

only with the documents submitted for the present tender and the
eligibility conditions prescribed therein.
28. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner had opted, in
its Letter of Transmittal, for “Monolithic Concrete Construction
system using Aluminium Formwork”. However, Form D-2, which is
the certificate submitted specifically in support of experience in the
opted structural system technology, records the technology used in the
LNJP Hospital project as “RCC framed structure and Steel framed
structure”. It is urged that this certificate does not establish prior
experience in the opted technology.
29. It is further submitted that the LNJP Hospital project was
admittedly not a completed work. The Performance Certificate records
that the work was suspended on 19.06.2024 and abandoned by the
Government under Clause 15, and further records that only 95%
structural work, 30% flooring and no electrical work were completed.
According to the Respondents, such a work could not be treated as a
satisfactorily completed similar work under Clause 7.1.
30. Learned counsel submits that the requirement of “similar work”
under the NIT is not confined merely to construction of a structure of
ten storeys or above. The work had to include water supply, sanitary
installation, internal electrical installations, firefighting with wet riser
system and SITC of lifts in the same contract. Since the Performance
Certificate itself records non-completion of essential components, the
Respondents were justified in treating the LNJP Hospital work as not
satisfying the requirement of a completed similar work.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 10 of 22

31. On the 30% formula, learned counsel submits that the
Petitioner’s interpretation would distort Clause 7.1. According to the
Respondents, the formula is meant to apply where the work is
otherwise a completed work with the opted technology and only the
separate cost of such structural system is unavailable. It cannot be
used to attribute 30% of the value of an entire composite project to
one technology component, especially where the Petitioner’s own
certificate shows use of different structural systems.
32. It is finally submitted that the email indicating acceptance of the
bid was an inadvertent system-generated communication and did not
create any enforceable right in favour of the Petitioner, particularly
when the list of technically qualified bidders did not include the
Petitioner’s name and as the rejection email was sent to the Petitioner
within 4 minutes.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
33. The scope of interference in tender matters is well settled. The
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the
technical evaluation made by the tendering authority. The enquiry is
confined to whether the decision-making process suffers from mala
fides , arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, discrimination, or
violation of the tender conditions.
34. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail
1
Corporation Ltd. and Anr. , the Supreme Court reiterated that the
owner or employer of a project, having authored the tender

1
(2016) 16 SCC 818
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 11 of 22

documents, is best placed to understand and appreciate its
requirements and to interpret its documents. Constitutional courts
must defer to such understanding unless the interpretation or
application of the tender condition is mala fide or perverse. The
Supreme Court also cautioned that words used in tender documents
cannot be ignored or treated as redundant.
35. In Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and
2
Transport Undertaking(BEST) and Ors. , the Supreme Court
emphasised that courts must exercise restraint in contractual and
commercial matters, particularly where the tender involves technical
issues. It was observed that needless interference in commercial
matters may cause serious prejudice to public projects and the public
exchequer, and that interference is warranted only where a clear case
of arbitrariness, mala fides , bias or irrationality is made out.
36. The present Tender concerns a large public infrastructure
project involving civil engineering, structural technology and
technical eligibility. The question before this Court is, therefore, not
whether the Petitioner is otherwise an experienced and competent
contractor. The question is narrower, whether the Respondents’ view
that the Petitioner did not satisfy Clause 7.1 of the NIT is so arbitrary
or perverse as to warrant interference.
37. Clause 7.1 of the NIT required the bidder to satisfy two material
conditions. The first was the requirement of satisfactorily completed
similar works of the prescribed value. The second was the requirement
of having satisfactorily completed one work with the opted technology

2
(2023) 19 SCC 1
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 12 of 22

proposed in the Letter of Transmittal, with the cost of structural
system executed with such opted technology not being less than Rs.
134.67 crores.
38. The Petitioner’s case substantially rests on the LNJP Hospital
project. The said work was relied upon both for the purpose of
completed similar work and for the purpose of experience in the opted
technology.
39. It is evident that the Petitioner, in its Letter of Transmittal,
opted for “Monolithic Concrete Construction system using
Aluminium Formwork”. This particular technology finds place in
Appendix-III of the NIT as an approved cast-in-situ structural system
technology.
40. Since the controversy partly turned on the nature of the
structural systems referred to in the bid documents, this Court had
requested the parties to place literature explaining the difference
between a composite structure consisting of RCC framed structure and
steel framed structure, and Monolithic Concrete Construction system
using Aluminium Formwork. The said material is noticed only for
understanding the technical expressions and technologies as used in
the tender documents, forms and the certificates.
41. Broadly understood, a composite RCC and steel framed
structure proceeds on a structural frame consisting of reinforced
cement concrete and/or steel members, such as columns, beams and
allied structural components. Monolithic Concrete Construction
system using Aluminium Formwork, on the other hand, uses
aluminium formwork as a mould for casting concrete structural
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 13 of 22

elements in an integrated manner, so as to achieve a monolithic
concrete system.
42. For the purposes of the present case, it is sufficient to note that
the two technologies are distinct structural systems, and the tendering
authority was entitled to examine whether the work relied upon by the
Petitioner satisfied the specific requirement of the opted technology.
43. In the Respondents’ view, the LNJP Hospital project did not
establish that the Petitioner had satisfactorily completed work with the
opted technology of the requisite structural-system value of not less
than Rs. 134.67 crores. The limited question is whether such a view is
irrational, perverse or contrary to the tender conditions.
44. The difficulty for the Petitioner, however, lies in the documents
submitted by it in support of its eligibility. Form D-2, which is the
certificate of experience in support of having successfully completed
one work with the structural system technology proposed to be used
for the present work, does not certify the LNJP Hospital project as a
completed work in Monolithic Concrete Construction system using
Aluminium Formwork. On the contrary, it records the type of
structural system technology used as “RCC framed structure and Steel
framed structure”.
45. The said Form D-2 also does not record any actual date of
completion. Against the column of “actual date of completion”, it
records that the work was suspended by the PWD on 19.06.2024. The
certificate, therefore, cannot be read in isolation merely by reference
to its heading or concluding words. It has to be read as a whole. When
so read, the certificate does not support the Petitioner’s assertion that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 14 of 22

the LNJP Hospital project was satisfactorily completed work with the
opted technology.
46. The Petitioner is right in submitting that Form D-2 refers to the
Performance Certificate and that the Performance Certificate contains
a reference to monolithic construction using aluminium shuttering.
However, the Performance Certificate, too, has to be read as a whole.
47. The Performance Certificate dated 11.03.2026 leads to the same
conclusion. It records that the work was suspended on 19.06.2024 by
the Department and was abandoned by the Government under Clause
15. It further records that due to abandonment, only the structural part
was completed up to 95%, flooring was completed up to 30%, the rest
of the civil work was not executed, and no electrical work was
completed.
48. The Performance Certificate also describes the LNJP Hospital
structure as a composite structure consisting of RCC framed structure
and steel framed structure with monolithic construction having
aluminium shuttering. It further refers to the project having an
approximate plan area of 91,000 square metres, with the steel structure
forming part of the main hospital building and the lift lobby/staircase
part involving monolithic construction with aluminium shuttering.
49. The tendering authority, has therefore, drawn its conclusion
from the very certificates submitted by the Petitioner. Whether the
Petitioner’s reading of those certificates is also possible is not the test.
It is whether the Respondents’ reading is so irrational or perverse that
it warrants interference in judicial review.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 15 of 22

50. The Petitioner, though, has rightly emphasised that the
abandonment was not stated to be on account of any default
attributable to it. The Performance Certificate also records that
extension of time was granted without levy of compensation and that
no compensation was levied.
51. That, however, does not resolve the question of eligibility. The
issue in the present Writ Petition is not one of attribution of fault for
abandonment. The issue is whether an admittedly abandoned work
could be treated as a “satisfactorily completed” work for the purposes
of Clause 7.1 of the NIT. Clause 7.1 does not contain any deeming
provision by which a suspended, or abandoned work would be treated
as a completed work merely because the abandonment was
attributable to the Government. The Court exercising judicial review
cannot supply a deeming fiction which the tender itself does not
contain.
52. The Petitioner has sought to meet this difficulty by contending
that the word “work” in the expression “completed cost of
project/work” must be given independent meaning, and that the work
allotted to the Petitioner had been executed to the extent permitted by
the Tendering Authority. The submission, though attractive at first
blush, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case.
53. The expression “completed cost of project/work” appears in
Clause 7.1 only for the limited purpose of computing the value of the
structural system where its separate cost is not available in the
experience certificate. It cannot be read separately so as to dilute the
primary requirement of the clause, namely, that the bidder must have
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 16 of 22

satisfactorily completed one work with the opted technology. The
computational formula cannot override the eligibility condition to
which it is attached.
54. The Petitioner has also laid considerable emphasis on the value
of work executed at LNJP Hospital. It is urged that the work executed
was Rs. 549.56 crores and that, after enhancement, it came to Rs.
611.75 crores. It is further urged that this exceeded the original
contract value and, therefore, the work should be treated as completed
for eligibility purposes.
55. This submission cannot be accepted. Execution of work of
substantial monetary value is not the same as satisfactory completion
of a qualifying work, where the NIT itself makes completion an
eligibility condition. The tendering authority was entitled to examine
whether the work relied upon satisfied the tender definition of similar
completed work and whether the opted technology requirement was
fulfilled.
56. This conclusion is reinforced by the definition of “similar
work”. The NIT required, inter alia , water supply, sanitary
installation, internal electrical installations, firefighting with wet riser
system and SITC of lifts. The Performance Certificate records that
only the structural part was completed up to 95%, flooring up to 30%,
and no electrical work was completed. In such circumstances, the
Respondents’ view that the LNJP Hospital work did not satisfy the
requirement of a completed similar work cannot be characterised as
irrational.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 17 of 22

57. The next submission of the Petitioner’s case concerns the opted
technology and the 30% deeming formula. The Petitioner submits that
the LNJP Hospital project involved monolithic construction using
aluminium shuttering, that the NIT did not require the opted
technology to be the sole or exclusive technology used in the
reference work, and that once separate cost was unavailable, the
Respondents were bound to apply the 30% formula.
58. There may be merit in the broad proposition that a reference
project involving more than one technology is not automatically
excluded merely because it is hybrid or composite. The NIT does not
expressly state that the opted technology must be the only technology
used in the reference project. However, that proposition does not
answer the real difficulty. The bidder must still show that the cost of
the structural system executed with the opted technology met the
threshold of Rs. 134.67 crores.
59. The Petitioner has not placed on record any certificate or
material disclosing the separate value of the component executed with
the opted technology, namely Monolithic Concrete Construction
system using Aluminium Formwork. The fact that aluminium
shuttering may have been used in part of the work does not, by itself,
establish that the structural system executed with the opted technology
had a value of Rs. 134.67 crores or more.
60. The Petitioner contends that this is precisely why the 30%
formula exists. According to the Petitioner, once the experience
certificate does not separately disclose the cost of the opted
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 18 of 22

technology, the Respondents had no discretion but to take 30% of the
completed cost of the LNJP project/work.
61. This Court is unable to accept such an absolute reading of the
30% formula. The formula is for the purpose of valuation, not a
substitute for proof of eligibility. It applies where the bidder has
otherwise established a qualifying completed work with the opted
technology, but the experience certificate does not separately disclose
the value of that structural system. The mere fact that the opted
technology formed part of a composite project does not, by itself,
compel the tendering authority to apply 30% of the entire project/work
value to that technology, where the bidder’s own documents do not
establish the extent, value, or qualifying character of the work
executed with the opted technology.
62. The formula does not operate automatically upon a reference to
the opted technology in a composite project. The tendering authority
was still entitled to examine whether the Petitioner had established a
qualifying completed work with the opted technology of the
prescribed structural-system value.
63. The interpretation placed by the Respondents gives meaning to
the words “structural system executed with opted technology”. It is
consistent with the language of Clause 7.1 and does not render any
part of the tender condition redundant. In view of the principles stated
in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (Supra) , this Court would not substitute
its own construction merely because the Petitioner presses another
interpretation as a possible view.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 19 of 22

64. The Petitioner has also urged that if the Respondents had any
doubt regarding the extent or value of monolithic aluminium
formwork, they ought to have sought clarification either from the
Petitioner or from the Executive Engineer who issued the certificate.
This submission also cannot be accepted as a ground for interference.
65. Eligibility had to be established by the bidder through the
documents submitted with the bid. The NIT required the Petitioner to
furnish the relevant details and certificates. If the documents furnished
did not establish the mandatory eligibility condition to the satisfaction
of the tendering authority, the authority was not bound to invite the
bidder to improve, supplement or explain the bid after submission. In
a competitive tender, such an approach may itself raise concerns of
unequal treatment.
66. The Petitioner has next urged that the detailed communication
dated 25.04.2026 amounts to a post-facto improvement of the reasons
contained in the rejection email dated 21.04.2026. This contention
does not persuade the Court.
67. The rejection email communicated the essential ground, namely
that none of the works listed in Form C fulfilled the requirement of
satisfactorily completed one work with the opted technology; that the
LNJP Hospital work was not a completed work; and that the other two
works did not qualify for the said technology. The communication
dated 25.04.2026 only elaborated the reasons already indicated.
68. It is also necessary to note that the Petitioner had submitted a
representation, which was responded to by the communication dated
25.04.2026. The matter, therefore, is not one where the Petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 20 of 22

left without any indication of the basis on which its bid had been
rejected.
69. The Petitioner’s reliance on the portal-generated acceptance
email dated 21.04.2026 at 11:26 AM also does not carry the matter
further. The rejection email followed within minutes. More
importantly, the list of technically qualified bidders published through
Corrigendum No. 8 did not include the Petitioner’s name. In these
circumstances, the said acceptance email cannot create eligibility
where the tender conditions were otherwise not fulfilled.
70. At best, the email sequence may indicate an inadvertent
automatic generation of the first email. It does not, however, establish
a lack of transparency, as the second email communicating the
rejection followed at around 11:29 AM, nor does it vitiate the
substantive decision where the reasons for rejection are traceable to
the tender conditions and the Petitioner’s own documents.
71. This Court is conscious that the Petitioner may have substantial
execution experience. That, however, is not determinative of the
present controversy. The Court is concerned only with whether the
Petitioner satisfied the specific eligibility requirements of the present
NIT. On the record placed before the Court, the Respondents’
conclusion that the Petitioner did not satisfy Clause 7.1 cannot be said
to be arbitrary, mala fide , discriminatory, perverse or contrary to the
tender terms.
CONCLUSION
72. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground
to interfere with the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 21 of 22

The decision of the Respondents is based on a plausible reading of
Clause 7.1 of the NIT and on the documents submitted by the
Petitioner.
73. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending
application shall stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
MAY 21, 2026
sp/ad
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:46:04
W.P.(C) 5670/2026 Page 22 of 22