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 Challenging Dam Tourism Tender
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the tender process for conducting tourism activities at Kanjirapuzha Dam, holding that the petition amounted to proxy litigation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. found that the tender participants had accepted the outcome of the process and that the petitioner, who was a stranger to the tender proceedings, had no basis to challenge the award.
The Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
Court Questions Petitioner’s Locus Standi
The Bench observed that the petition tested the limits of the rule of locus standi in public interest litigation. It noted that none of the unsuccessful tenderers had approached the Court, while the petitioner was attempting to raise their grievance despite not being affected by the tender decision.
“The rule of locus standi is put to an acid test in this Public Interest Litigation… the unsuccessful tenderers have not come to court, instead the petitioner is trying to espouse the cause of such unsuccessful tenderers who does not suffer from any disability for which the court may relax the rule of locus standi and permit an individual to launch a proxy battle against the State and the successful tenderers… The petition was filed for extraneous considerations and with oblique motive. The petition stands dismissed with costs of ₹10,000/- to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from today,” the Court observed.
Tender Awarded For Kanjirapuzha Dam Tourism Project
The State had invited proposals from the public for developing a project to promote tourism activities at Kanjirapuzha Dam through the website of the Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (KIIDC).
Four persons submitted applications. After evaluation, the proposal submitted by M/s. FIST Redefine Destinations Pvt. Ltd. was selected, and the tender was awarded to it. The present PIL was filed thereafter.
Also Read: Non-Issuance of Integrity Certificate Doesn’t Vitiate IPS Promotion Process: Telangana High Court
Petitioner Alleged Corruption In Tender Process
The petitioner alleged corruption in the tender process. It was contended that other applicants had offered to share between 10% and 50% of the revenue with the Government, whereas the tender was awarded to a bidder who proposed only 3% revenue share.
The State opposed the petition and questioned the petitioner’s locus standi. Relying on Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, the State argued that disputes resembling private disputes between individual parties could not be raised through a public interest litigation.
State Defends Selection Of Successful Bidder
In its counter affidavit, the State explained the process followed for selecting the successful bidder. It submitted that the Government’s policy was to create a unique brand of irrigation tourism through public-private partnership, and Kanjirapuzha Dam was selected in furtherance of that objective.
According to the State, tenders were invited through newspaper publication as well as notification on the official website. The successful bidder had submitted a more detailed proposal containing projected profitability, footfall details and other particulars, while the other applicants had not provided similar details.
The State further submitted that the Chief Engineer had issued a letter to all tender participants seeking financial capability details certified by a Chartered Accountant. However, only two participants complied with the requirement.
It was also stated that the successful bidder had proposed new and advanced tourism components, which the State considered capable of attracting more tourists and generating higher revenue within a shorter period. The decision was taken after considering all these aspects, the State submitted.
Vigilance Complaint Seen As Attempt To Delay Project
In reply to the State’s counter, the petitioner submitted that a complaint had been filed before the Vigilance Department and that the same was pending.
However, the Court held that little turned on the said complaint. It observed that the petitioner appeared to have filed the complaint after realising that the PIL was unlikely to be sustained.
“In our view, nothing much turns on such a complaint as it is clear that the petitioner by filing the same had only opened another front to disrupt and delay the implementation of the said project. It was in such background of facts, there cannot be any doubt that it is a proxy litigation,” the Court added.
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
Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Police Constable’s Conviction In ₹1,000 Bribe Case From 1994
