Kerala High Court
M/S. Orizont Trading Llprepresented By ... vs The Administration Of Union Territory ... on 18 February, 2026
2026:KER:13798
WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 45593 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. ORIZONT TRADING LLPREPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED
PARTNER K.P ABDURAHIMAN
AGED 65 YEARS
4/56, NEAR PORT GATE, BEYPORE PORT, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673638
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SMT.K.R.RIJA
SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
SMT.SURYA R.
SHRI.SUDEESH K.E.
SHRI.PRAHLADH S.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP(UTLA) REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
2 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY (POWER), UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
4 TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE
TENDER NO.LD-42001/9/2024/LED-ELECTRICITY,DATED
2026:KER:13798
WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 2
07.10.2025 FOR TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING OF HSD/LUBE
OIL FILLED/EMPTY BARRELS AND GENERAL CARGOS AT BEYPORE
SUB DIVISION OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF
ELECTRICITY, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI,
PIN - 682555
5 ADDL.R5.UNITED LADING CONTRACTORS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DIBIN V.K, PORT ROAD,
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE ,PIN - 673015 [ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 08/01/2026 IN I.A. 1/2026 IN WP(C)
45593/2025]
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, SC FOR R1 TO R4
SRI.P.JERIL BABU FOR R5
SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH
SMT.PRASUDHA.S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2026, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13798
WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a limited partnership firm constituted under the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee of the 1 st respondent (the Administration of Lakshadweep), disqualifying the petitioner from participating in the tender process notified as per Ext.P4. The reason for disqualifying the petitioner was that, one of the designated partners of the petitioner firm was found to be blacklisted by the Central Public Works Department, which attracts as a disqualification as per the tender documents.
2. The facts which led to the filing of the tender notification are as follows: As per Ext.P4 notification dated 7.10.2025, the 3 rd respondent invited tenders from the eligible person and entities, for "Transportation and Handling of HSD/Lub Oil filled/empty Barrels and General Cargos at Beypore Sub Division Office, Lakshadweep Electricity Department during the year, 2025-2026". In response to Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted a tender and Ext.P7 is the "Proforma of Declaration of Blacklisting" furnished by the petitioner stating that, neither the petitioner nor any partner, involved in the management of the said firm, either in his individual capacity or as proprietor or managing partner of any firm or concern, have or has 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 4 been placed on black list or holiday list declared by Lakshadweep District Department of Electricity or by any Department of the State or Central Government or any other Public Works Undertaking.
3. The tender was submitted by the petitioner on 28.10.2025, which was the last date fixed for submission of the tender. On 29.10.2025, the 3rd respondent, as per the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee, which is uploaded Ext.P6 in the web portal, disqualified the petitioner. The reason stated in Ext.P6 was that Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty, one of the designated partners who was previously a contractor of the Department for the same work, has been debarred from participating in any work of the Department for a period of two years. Thus, it was found that the petitioner is not eligible to participate in the tender process.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, the order debarring Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty, who was one of the designated partners of the petitioner firm, was passed on 17.10.2025. Immediately on the next day, the partnership was re-constituted as evidenced by Ext.P2 supplemental limited liability partnership agreement and necessary approval from the Registrar of Companies was also obtained as per Ext.P2 on 22.10.2025. As per the re-constitution deed, Sri. K.V.Sankarankutty retired from the partnership along with another person and a new partner named Moosa Anas, was inducted as a 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 5 designated partner in the place of Sri. K.V.Sankarankutty. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that, as on the date of submission of bid on 28.10.2025, neither the petitioner-firm nor the partners of the said firm, were suffering from any disqualification by way of blacklisting and hence Ext.P6 decision rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is not legally sustainable. It is also the case of the petitioner that, going by clause 6.7 of the tender documents, the stipulation contained therein that, the "bidder" shall not be either blacklisted or debarred by Central Government or any of the State/UT Government/PSUs. In this case, the "bidder" is the petitioner which is a limited liability partnership firm and it has a separate entity of its own, distinct from its partners. Therefore, the fact that, one of the designated partners of the petitioner-firm, who retired from the partnership before submission of the bid was blacklisted, cannot be a ground for disqualification of the petitioner from participating in the tender process. The writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in the said circumstances challenging Ext.P6 and seeking a declaration that the petitioner's technical bid is not to be rejected, for the reasons stated in Ext.P6.
5. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter affidavit disputing the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought for. It is pointed out that, the claim of the petitioner that, in 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 6 the light of re-constitution of the partnership on 18.10.2025 as per Ext.P2, no disqualification would attract as per the terms and conditions in the NIT, cannot be considered in view of the fact that, the re-constitution itself was made as an eye-wash to avoid the disqualification. According to the respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner had obtained the tender documents on 7.10.2025 and immediately after one of its designated partners being blacklisted as per Ext.P6, in order to avoid possible disqualification, purposefully the partnership was re-constituted as per Ext.P2 and thereby it is an attempt to avail the work indirectly, which was not possible to obtain directly. It is also the case of the respondents that, in some of the documents produced along with the tender Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty was shown as designated partner and the Tender Evaluation Committee proceeded on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner-firm, in the light of debarring of the said designated partner.
6. The additional 5th respondent, the bidder whose tender was accepted, also filed a detailed counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit, disputing the contentions raised by the petitioner. They have produced Exts.R5 (1) to( 3), which include the documents furnished by the petitioner along with the tender showing the experience of the petitioner. It is pointed out that, as per Ext.R5(2) 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 7 and R5(3), it can be seen that, the very same work has been certified by the Central Public Works Department in favour of the petitioner as well as Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty. It was also pointed out that Ext.R5(2) was submitted in respect of the work which was carried out in the year, 2017-2018, whereas, the petitioner-firm itself came into existence only on 6.11.2019 as evidenced by Ext.P11. Therefore, it was pointed out that, the documents relied on by the petitioner cannot be accepted and hence dismissal of the writ petition was sought.
7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by all the respondents.
8. Initially, when the matter came up for consideration, this Court passed an interim order dated 03.12.2025 directing that the financial bids received based on Ext.P4 shall not be opened. Subsequently, the said order was modified as per order dated 12.12.2025, directing that the technical bid of the petitioner shall be provisionally accepted and all the financial bills including that of the petitioner be opened and examined. In compliance of the said direction, the technical bid of the petitioner was provisionally accepted and the financial bills of all the parties were opened and the petitioner was the lowest bidder. It is in these factual backgrounds, the issues in this writ petition are to be considered.
2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 8
9. Heard Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Prenjith Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. Jeril Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P6, mainly on the ground that, as on the date of the submission of the bid, the petitioner was not suffering from any disqualification, since the petitioner or any of the partners were blacklisted. The learned counsel brought to the attention of this Court, the relevant clause in Ext.P4 which is clause 6.7, that contemplates the disqualification on the ground of blacklisting. It was pointed out that, as per the said clause, the disqualification is attracted only when the "bidder" is blacklisted/debarred by the Central Government or any State/Union Territory Government. As per clause 2.2, the "bidder "means any bidder participating in this tender. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner being a limited liability partnership firm, has a separate entity of its own, distinct from its partners, and therefore unless the petitioner itself is debarred/blacklisted, no disqualification as contemplated under clause 6.7 would be attracted. According to the petitioner, in this case, the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 to disqualify the petitioner is that, Sri. K.V.Sankarankutty, the former partner of the petitioner - firm was found to be disqualified, 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 9 whereas the said partner retired from the partnership firm on 18.10.2025 and the tender documents were submitted on 28.10.2025. Thus, as on the said date, there was no disqualification, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel also brought to the attention of this Court, the contents of Ext.P2 supplemental limited liability partnership agreement, which indicates the retirement of Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty and another person, and it also contains the induction of a new designated partner in the place of the said K.V.Sankarankutty. Therefore, it is contended that, under no circumstances, the disqualification as found in Ext.P6 can be sustained.
11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 as well as the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent stoutly oppose the contentions raised by the petitioner. The re-constitution itself was only an eye-wash to get over the possible disqualification of the petitioner in the light of the order of blacklisting of one of its partners as evidenced by Ext.P9 on 17.10.2025. The fact that, on the next day itself i.e. on 18.10.2025, the firm was reconstituted as evidenced by Ext.P2 itself indicates the said intention of the parties. Thus, according to the respondents, the attempt of the petitioner is to get the contract indirectly, which the petitioner is not entitled to, going by the terms and conditions in 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 10 Ext.P4.
12. From the side of the petitioner, a large number of the decisions were cited which includes Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Others [(2025) SCC OnLine 2023], Shanthi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odissa & Others [MANU/SC/1493/2025], Maha Mineral Mining and Benefication Pvt. Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co.Ltd. [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1942], T.R.Chandha & Co.LLP v. REC Ltd. [MANU/DE/8477/2024], Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & others v. Manoj Kumar Agarwala & others [(2020)17 SCC 577], Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Others [(2024)10 SCC 273] and Reliance Energy Ltd & another v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & another [(2007)8 SCC1] in support of their contentions. From the side of the respondents also, a large number of decisions were cited which include Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and Another [(2020)16 SCC 489], Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. And Another [(2016)16 SCC 818], Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2022) and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others[(2007)14 SCC 517].
13. I have carefully gone through the records. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the decisions referred to above, contends that the terms of NIT must be clear and 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 11 ambiguous, and the same have to be strictly implemented when it comes to the question of disqualification. However, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on various observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal's case (supra) wherein, the limited scope of judicial review in the matter of interpreting the terms and conditions in the tender documents are highlighted. It was pointed out that, according to the respondents, the interference at the instance of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted only in exemptional circumstances and interpretation of the relevant clauses in the tender documents are to be made normally, by accepting the interpretation i.e., made by the Government/tenderer. This submission is made by the learned counsel for the respondents, mainly on the ground that, in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., [(2006)11 SCC 548] it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
"It is not always necessary that a contract be awarded to the lowest tenderer and it must be kept in mind that the employer is the best judge therefor; the same ordinarily being within its domain. Therefore, the court's interference in such matters should be minimal. The High Court's jurisdiction in such matters being limited, the Court should normally exercise judicial restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the employer is apparent on the face of the record."
14. After carefully going through the materials placed on record, I find some merits in the objections raised by the respondents in this case. The scope of interference by this Court under Art. 226 of the 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 12 Constitution of India in contractual matters, particularly in interpreting the terms and conditions of the contract ,are well defined and are clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999)1 SCC 492], it was observed as follows:
"When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If, for example, the dispute is purely between two tenderers, the court must be very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide, the court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers."
In Afcons Infrastructure' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 15 as follows:
"We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."
In Silppi Constructions Contractor's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 20, the following observations are made:
2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 13 "20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case."
In Uflex's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 40, the following observations are made:
"We must begin by noticing that we are examining the case, as already stated above, on the parameters discussed at the inception. In commercial tender matters there is obviously an aspect of commercial competitiveness. For every succeeding party who gets a tender there may be a couple or more parties who are not awarded the tender as there can be only one L-1. The question is should the judicial process be resorted to for downplaying the freedom which a tendering party has, merely because it is a State or a public authority, making the said process even more cumbersome. We have already noted that element of transparency is always required in such tenders because of the nature of economic activity carried on by the State, but the contours under which they are to be examined are restricted as set out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] and other cases. The objective is not to make the Court an appellate authority for scrutinising as to whom the tender should be awarded. Economics must be permitted to play its role for which the tendering authority knows best as to what is suited in terms of technology and price for them."
15. Thus, what is discernible from the aforesaid observations is that the employer who prepared the tender documents is the best person to understand the nature of the work and to laid down the qualification required for carrying out the said 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 14 work. Therefore, the interpretation of various clauses in the tender document as adopted by the employer has to be accepted, unless the same is against law or it indicates any bias or unreasonableness. It is also discernible that unless an interference is warranted in the public interest, the decision taken by the tendering authority shall not be interfered with.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also, by relying upon various observations in the decisions referred to by him, made an attempt to convince this Court that, the essential conditions of eligibility cannot be altered by the tendering authority and the same has to be strictly implemented. Thus, the decision in this writ petition has to be taken keeping the aforesaid principles in mind and by applying those principles in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
17. When coming to the factual circumstances, the sequence of events that led to the issuance of impugned order and the close proximity in terms of the dates of various events, which include, the order of blacklisting of one of the designated partners of the petitioner, the reconstitution of the partnership firm, the submission of tender etc.. are very much relevant. To be precise, the tender was invited as per Ext.P4 on 7.10.2025. On the same day, the petitioner obtained the tender documents and understood the terms and 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 15 conditions of the tender. On 17.10.2025, Ext.P9 order was passed, blacklisting Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty, one of the designated partners of the petitioner-firm. The said Ext.P9 would indicate that, it was not an order passed all of a sudden, but the same was the continuation of two show cause notices referred to in Ext.P9, which are dated 27.5.2024 and 6.10.2015. Immediately after issuance of Ext.P9, the firm was reconstituted on 18.10.2025 as evidenced by Ext.P2 and necessary permission was obtained from the competent authority in this regard as evidenced by Ext.P3. The tender was submitted on 28.10.2025 after removal of Sri. K.V. Sankarankutty, the designated partner who was blacklisted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, the close proximity of the dates referred to above are very conspicuous. It is the specific case of the respondents 1 to 4 that, the purpose of reconstitution immediately after the issuance of Ext.P9, the order of blacklisting of K.V.Sankarankutty, was to avoid the disqualification and to get the work indirectly, as the petitioner was aware that, going by clause 6.7 of Ext.P4, the petitioner may suffer disqualification.
18. On going through the sequence of events as referred to above, I am of the view that, the said contention cannot be simply ignored. In this case, it is also to be noted that, the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 is that, 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 16 the nature of contract is very important while considering the issues involved in this writ petition. The same includes the supply of diesel to various islands in Lakshadweep and the fuel is proposed to be used for electricity generation. The only source of power in all the islands in Lakshadweep is by way of diesel generators and therefore any delay in supply of the materials would cause serious difficulties and prejudice to the islands as the entire activity in the islands would come to a stand still, since no power can be generated without fuel. The apprehension voiced by the respondents is based on the fact that, disqualified designated partner (former) had undertaken similar works of the Department and caused huge delay in fulfilling the obligation and, therefore, respondents 1 to 4 do not want to take any risk in the matter and their interest is to ensure that a proper person, who is capable of fulfilling the obligations and carry out the work in time, is put in place.
19. After carefully going through the entire sequence of events, I am of the view that, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents cannot be ignored because, the terms and conditions are framed by the respondents 1 to 4 and they are the competent persons to take a decision as to the party to whom the work is to be entrusted. It is discernible from Ext.P6 that, the Tender Evaluation Committee has taken a decision that the petitioner is not 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 17 suitable for carrying out the said work and instead, opted for the 5 th respondent. This is a choice consciously made by them taking into account various aspects and unless any serious impropriety, irrationality or bias is found in the sequence of events that formed the basis of the decision, no interference is required.
20. Of course, it is true that, the terms and conditions in Ext.P4, if interpreted strictly would give a room of doubt regarding an interpretation that only if the "bidder" is blacklisted, the disqualification would be attracted. However, the said clause cannot be read in isolation. Exhibit P7 is the "Proforma of Declaration of Blacklisting" and it is submitted in a format prescribed in the tender documents and the said format includes a declaration by the tenderer that the firm as well as the partners involved in the management of the said firm, either in his individual capacity or as a proprietor or a managing partner of the firm or concern have not or has not been placed on blacklist. Thus, according to the respondents, a conjoined reading of clause 6.7 and the contents of Ext.P7 proforma has to be made. Since this is an interpretation adopted by the respondents, who are more competent to decide upon the qualification of the parties concerned, unless there are serious discrepancies in such interpretation, no interference is warranted. In this case as mentioned above, the specific case of the respondents 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 18 1 to 4 is that, there would be possible delay in making the supply. Any delay in that matter will be very crucial, since this would affect the functioning of all the activities in an Island. Therefore, they had given importance to the timely compliance of the terms and conditions of the contract and it was on that reason, a decision not to accept the tender of the petitioner was taken. In the light of the decisions referred to above, the freedom available to the tendering authority cannot be curtailed, for the commercial interest of the parties participating in the tender.
21. Moreover, the terms and conditions in the tender documents need not be interpreted just like a statutory provision being interpreted. The tender documents forms part of a commercial contract and commercial competitiveness of the parties concerned can be best judged by the tendering authority alone. As observed in B.S.N. Joshi's case (supra), if the decision relating to awarding of contract taken by the tendering authority is bonafide and in public interest, the courts will not, in exercise of powers of judicial review interfere even if a procedural alteration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review need not be permitted to invoke to protect private interest, to decide contractual issues. Moreover, if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation of the author must be accepted in contractual matters.
2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 19
22. In this case, the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 tender have been interpreted by the respondents 1 to 4, taking into account the contents of Ext.P7 proforma as well, and arrived at the conclusion that the blacklisting of a partner will have a consequence in the matter of qualification of the petitioner-firm as well. Evidently the said blacklisted person was a partner till 18.10.2025, which is just before the tender notification was issued. The disqualification took place on 17.10.2025 and the immediate reconstitution of the firm making the disqualified person retired from the partnership firm, is very conspicuous and hence, the contention of the respondents that the same was orchestrated for the purpose of getting the work, cannot be simply ignored.
After carefully going through the entire materials, I find that, no interference is required in the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee as per Ext.P6. In such circumstances, I do not find any merits and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
pkk JUDGE
2026:KER:13798
WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 20
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 45593 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF
REGISTRATION NO.AAQ-9728 DATED 06.11.2019
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 18.10.2025
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS WEBSITE DATED
22.10.2025
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DOCUMENT NO. LD-
42001/9/2024/LED- ELECTRICITY DATED
07.10.2025
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION
CONFIRMATION DATED 28.10.2025
Exhibit -P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORT
DATED 02.12.2025 ALONG WITH MINUTES OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA OF DECLARATION OF
BLACKLISTING/HOLIDAY LISTING DATED 25.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit -P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE MESSAGE RECEIVED IN THE MOBILE PHONE ON 02.12.2025 Exhibit -P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2025 DEBARRING K.V SANKARANKUTTY RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R5(1) A true copy of the bid submission confirmation of the 5th respondent, dated 27- 10-2025,tender, Exhibit R5(2) A true copy of the experience certificate dated 20-12-2023 produced by the petitioner along with the bid documents Exhibit R5(3) A true copy of the experience certificate dated 21-10-2021 issued by the Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Kavaratti, in the name of Mr. K.V. Sankarankutty PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.2025 REGARDING WORK 2026:KER:13798 WP(C)No.45593 of 2025 21 ORDER NO.70132189 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION EXHIBIT-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.2025 REGARDING WORK ORDER NO.29040499 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(4) A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 01- 01-2026 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CPWD EXHIBIT R5(5) A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY ISSUED BY THE CPWD DATED 17-01-2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-12 A TRUE COPY OF THE N0C ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 30.04.2020 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R5(6) A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY ISSUED BY THE CPWD DATED 29-01-2026.