Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Dam Tourism Tender With ₹10K Costs, Calls It 'Proxy Litigation'

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. noted that the participants of the tender had accepted the results and the present PIL preferred by a stranger to the tender process amounted to a 'proxy litigation', intended to delay the project. It went on to impose exemplary costs on the litigant.

“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.

The State had invited proposals from the public to develop a project to promote Kanjirapuzha dam tourism through the website of the Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (KIIDC). Out of the four persons that submitted their applications, the proposal of M/s. FIST Redefine Destinations Pvt. Ltd. was selected and tender was awarded to it. Thereafter, the present PIL was preferred.

The petitioner contended that there was corruption in the tender process. It was pointed out that through the other applicants agreed to give 10% to 50% revenue share to the Government, the tender was awarded to the person who sought to provide only 3% of the revenue.

The State opposed the PIL and questioned the locus standi of the petitioner. Relying on Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, it was argued that disputes akin to private ones between individual parties cannot be raised. A counter was also filed by the State disclosing the actual process behind the selection.

The State submitted that the government's policy was to establish a unique brand of irrigation tourism through public-private partnership and with this objective in mind, the dam was selected. Tenders were invited through newspaper publication and notification on the official website.

The successful bidder's proposal was more detailed with projected profitability, football details, etc. while the others did not furnish any such information, it was stated. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer had issued a letter to all tender participants seeking a Chartered Accountant-certified financial capability details. However, only two persons complied with the same.

Since the successful bidder had suggested new and advanced tourism components, the State found that it had the potential to draw more tourists and to generate more revenue in a shorter period of time. It was considering all these aspects that the decision was made.

The petitioner submitted a reply to the counter wherein it was stated that a complaint has been made before the Vigilance Department and the same is pending. However, the Court felt that this was done so as to delay the project since the petitioner realized that his plea would be unsustainable.

“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.

Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to dismiss the PIL and impose costs on the petitioner.

Case No: WP(PIL) No. 119/2025

Case Title: Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233

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

Click to Read/Download Judgment