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.
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the tender process for tourism activities at Kanjirapuzha Dam. The Court held that the petition amounted to proxy litigation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. noted that all tender participants had accepted the outcome. The petitioner, who was not involved in the process, had no valid grounds to challenge the award.
The Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner. It directed the amount to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
Court Questions Petitioner’s Locus Standi
The Bench examined the issue of locus standi in PILs. It pointed out that none of the unsuccessful bidders had approached the Court. Instead, the petitioner tried to raise their grievances without being affected.
The Court observed that the petitioner did not suffer from any disability that would justify relaxing the rule of locus standi. It concluded that the petition was filed with oblique motives and for extraneous reasons. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition with costs.
Tender for Kanjirapuzha Dam Tourism Project
The State invited proposals to develop tourism activities at Kanjirapuzha Dam. It issued the tender through newspapers and the official website of the Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd..
Four applicants submitted proposals. After evaluation, the authorities selected M/s. FIST Redefine Destinations Pvt. Ltd. as the successful bidder. The petitioner filed the PIL after this selection.
Allegations of Corruption
The petitioner alleged corruption in the tender process. He argued that other bidders had offered a higher revenue share, ranging from 10% to 50%. In contrast, the selected bidder had offered only 3%.
The State opposed the petition. It questioned the petitioner’s locus standi and relied on the judgment in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices. It argued that private disputes between parties cannot be raised through a PIL.
State’s Justification for Selection
The State explained the selection process in its counter affidavit. It stated that the Government aimed to develop a unique irrigation tourism model through public-private partnership.
According to the State, the successful bidder submitted a detailed proposal. It included projections on profitability, tourist footfall, and project viability. Other bidders failed to provide comparable details.
The Chief Engineer also requested financial capability certificates from all participants. Only two bidders complied with this requirement.
The State further highlighted that the selected bidder proposed innovative tourism components. These features were expected to attract more visitors and generate higher revenue in a shorter time.
Vigilance Complaint and Court’s View
The petitioner informed the Court about a pending complaint before the Vigilance Department. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing.
It observed that the petitioner filed the complaint only after realizing that the PIL lacked merit. The Court concluded that the complaint aimed to delay the project.
The Bench stated that the litigation was a proxy attempt to obstruct implementation. It therefore dismissed the PIL and upheld the tender process.
