Kerala HC stays Chanderkunj Towers demolition, urges single bench to expedite case

The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed an earlier order of a single bench that had permitted the demolition of Chanderkunj Towers at Silver Sand Island in Vyttila.

A Division Bench of the High Court held that the Ernakulam District Collector may proceed with the preparatory formalities related to the demolition but stayed the actual demolition process until the single bench concludes hearing the case. The Division Bench also requested the single bench to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

The order was passed while considering an appeal filed by Tamil Nadu-based M/s PK Unique Projects Pvt Ltd against the single bench's refusal to stay the tender proceedings for the demolition.

The company had approached the High Court challenging its exclusion from the demolition contract despite emerging as the lowest financial bidder. It alleged that the contract was instead awarded to Mumbai-based Edifice Engineering, a higher bidder that had demolished three of the four apartment complexes in Maradu in 2020.

The single bench decision enabled the high-powered committee headed by the District Collector to move forward with the demolition of Chanderkunj Towers B and C, two 26-storey residential towers constructed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for retired Army personnel and later declared structurally unsafe.

The dispute arose from a tender notice issued on February 20, 2026, by the PWD Executive Engineer on behalf of the District Collector-led committee that invited bids from specialised agencies capable of carrying out the controlled implosion and demolition of the two towers, each comprising a basement, ground floor and 26 upper floors.

Financial bids were opened on May 11. PK Unique Projects emerged as the lowest bidder, quoting ₹9,22,13,412 for the project. Edifice Engineering, which later secured the contract, quoted ₹9,66,40,689, making its bid more than ₹44 lakh higher.

According to the petitioner, it had expected the contract to be awarded based on the lowest bid and had already begun preparatory work. However, after what it described as a prolonged period of silence from the authorities and unanswered communications, the company learned on May 28 that the committee had decided to award the contract to Edifice Engineering.

The firm subsequently approached the High Court by alleging that the decision was arbitrary, non-transparent and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It sought an interim stay on the award of the contract.