HC backs technical expertise over cost, clears Kochi Chander Kunj towers demolition; rejects lowest bidder’s plea

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has cleared the way for the long-pending demolition of two dangerously deteriorated high-rise towers at the Army Welfare Housing Organisation’s (AWHO) Chander Kunj project at Silver Sand Island near Vyttila Metro Station, upholding the authorities’ decision to prioritise technical expertise and safety over the lowest financial bid.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A A dismissed two writ petitions challenging the District Collector's committee's selection of Mumbai-based M/s Edifice Engineering to carry out the controlled demolition of Towers B and C, both 27-storey structures.

The three-tower complex had earlier been evacuated under disaster management protocols after structural assessments found severe deterioration in Towers B and C and warned of the imminent danger of collapse. The demolition has remained pending amid the need to identify a technically competent agency capable of bringing down the unstable structures without endangering the occupied Tower A, the Kochi Metro rail line passing by the buildings, or neighbouring buildings.

The issue had reached the HC after resident Ciby George approached the court highlighting the danger posed by the structures. Following court directions, an expert Demolition Committee headed by the District Collector was constituted to oversee the demolition and subsequent reconstruction.

The committee invited tenders from agencies with specialised expertise in controlled implosion technology using delayed detonation approved by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO). Given the location and the risks involved, the tender stipulated stringent safety requirements to prevent collateral damage to surrounding infrastructure.

Edifice Engineering was selected after its technical competence and previous experience were assessed. Its successful execution of the Maradu apartment demolitions was among the factors considered relevant to the Chander Kunj assignment.

The decision was challenged by PK Unique Projects Pvt. Ltd. of Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu, which argued that it had quoted the lowest financial bid, or L1, and therefore should have been awarded the contract. Another bidder, Ponulingam P of M/s Sree Kumaran Demolishers, approached the court after being eliminated at the initial technical presentation stage.

Defending the selection, Additional Advocate General P A Mohammed Shah submitted that the tender was evaluated under a Quality-cum-Cost-Based System (QCBS), under which technical capability carried 70% weightage and the financial bid 30%. The criteria had been finalised by the expert committee before the financial bids were opened.

Edifice secured the highest composite score of 92.3 marks, helped by its proven experience in precision controlled demolitions using explosives in Ernakulam. The state contended that PK Unique’s domestic experience was primarily in mechanical demolition, while the projects undertaken by its foreign partner were not comparable with the challenges of controlled demolition in a densely built-up urban location.

The AAG argued that where human lives and major public infrastructure such as the Kochi Metro were at risk, safety and technical capability had to take precedence over marginal financial considerations.

A structural expert associated with the evaluation committee also appeared online before the court and explained the technical safety parameters applied in assessing the bidders.

The HC accepted the safety considerations behind the committee’s decision and declined to interfere with the expert-led selection process.

“The structures situated nearby include the railway line of Metro Rail Corporation as well, and hence any compromise on the technical competence or capabilities may lead to a situation where irretrievable damage may occur to the infrastructural facilities, thereby affecting the public at large. Therefore, the public interest is in not interfering in the selection process already carried out by the respondents 1 to 3, particularly since such decisions are based on a collective decision-making process, after much deliberations and consultations with experts in the field,” the court observed.

The court also rejected the argument that prejudice to a competing bidder justified judicial intervention, stressing that private commercial interests could not override public safety.

"...even if some prejudice is caused to the petitioner, that by itself cannot be a reason to interfere in the selection process, since such interference would amount to the protection of private interest at the cost of public interest. It is also to be noted in this regard that the demolition of the building is to be affected for enabling the 5th respondent to reconstruct the same, for the benefit of the occupants in the said residential apartment complex, who were evicted to facilitate demolition,” the court said.

The court dismissed Ponulingam’s petition as well, noting that the firm had been disqualified during the initial technical round, had collected back its earnest money deposit without raising a timely objection and had approached the court belatedly.

With both petitions dismissed, the legal challenge to the tender has been cleared, paving the way for the demolition of the precarious Towers B and C and the subsequent reconstruction of flats for the residents who were evacuated from the unsafe complex.