The Court held that the petitioner, who was not part of the tender process, was attempting to espouse the cause of unsuccessful bidders and described the plea as proxy litigation filed with oblique motives.
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Over Dam Tourism Tender
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the tender process for tourism activities at Kanjirapuzha Dam.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the petition amounted to proxy litigation. The Court noted that the tender participants had accepted the result. However, the petitioner, who was not part of the tender process, sought to challenge the award.
The Court also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner. It directed him to pay the amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
Court Questions Petitioner’s Locus Standi
The Bench examined whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the PIL. It noted that none of the unsuccessful tenderers had approached the Court.
Instead, the petitioner attempted to raise their grievance, although he had no direct connection with the tender process. Therefore, the Court found no reason to entertain the petition.
Tender Awarded For Kanjirapuzha Dam Tourism Project
The State invited proposals for developing tourism activities at Kanjirapuzha Dam. It issued the invitation through the website of the Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
Four persons submitted applications. After evaluation, the authorities selected the proposal of M/s. FIST Redefine Destinations Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, they awarded the tender to the company.
The petitioner then filed the PIL before the High Court.
Petitioner Alleges Corruption In Tender Process
The petitioner alleged corruption in the tender process. According to him, some applicants had offered to share between 10% and 50% of revenue with the Government. However, the authorities selected a bidder who offered only 3% revenue share.
The State opposed the petition. It also questioned the petitioner’s locus standi.
Further, the State relied on Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices. It argued that parties cannot convert private disputes into public interest litigation.
State Defends Tender Selection
The State defended the selection process in its counter affidavit. It submitted that the Government wanted to create a unique brand of irrigation tourism through a public-private partnership.
The State also explained why it selected Kanjirapuzha Dam for the project. According to the State, the project formed part of its larger tourism policy.
Moreover, the State submitted that it invited tenders through newspaper publication and an official website notification.
The successful bidder submitted a detailed proposal. The proposal included projected profitability, expected footfall, and other relevant details. In contrast, other applicants did not provide similar particulars.
The State further said that the Chief Engineer asked all tender participants to submit financial capability details certified by a Chartered Accountant. However, only two participants complied with this requirement.
In addition, the successful bidder proposed new and advanced tourism components. The State believed these components could attract more tourists and generate higher revenue within a shorter period.
Therefore, the State argued that it had taken a reasoned decision after considering all relevant factors.
Court Says Vigilance Complaint Was Filed To Delay Project
In reply, the petitioner said that he had filed a complaint before the Vigilance Department. He also submitted that the complaint remained pending.
However, the Court refused to give weight to that submission. It found that the petitioner appeared to have filed the complaint only after realising that the PIL may not survive.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL and imposed costs on the petitioner.
Case Details
Case Title: Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No.: WP(PIL) No. 119/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Court: Kerala High Court
Bench: Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
Counsel for the Petitioner: C. Rajendran
Counsel for the Respondents: P. I. Davis, Special Government Pleader; D. Kishore; R. Rajpradeep; Meera Gopinath; R. Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara); Anant Kishore
