Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, CJ., BASANT BALAJI, J.
V.D. Satheeshan M.L.A., S/o. Damodara Menon and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) no. 19992 of 2023
Decided On : 27-08-2025
For the Petitioners: George Poonthottam (Sr.), Smt. Nisha George, Sri. Arun Chandran, Sri. J. Vishnu, Sri. A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Shri. Sidharth. R. Wariyar.
For the Respondents:AG, Shri Gopalakrishna Kurup, Shri.N.Manoj Kumar, State Attorney, Smt. M.A. Zohra, Shri. Shyam Padman (Sr.), Shri. P. Binod, Shri. P. Sreekumar (Sr.), Shri. Aditya Unnikrishnan, Sri. Mansoor Ali, Shri. Rajeesh V.R., Shri. C.M. Andrews, Smt. Boby M. Sekhar, Smt. Laya Mary Joseph, Shri. Harish Abraham, Smt. Nichu Willington, Smt. Ashwathi Shyam, Shri.Muhammed Suhail P.A., Smt.Helen P.A., Smt.Stephanie Sharon, Shri. Athul Roy, Sri. P.S. Murali, Smt. Haritha Harinath, Advocate General, Shri.V.Manu, Senior G.P., Smt. Saritha K.S., Smt. Binisha Baby, Shri. Aravind Rajagopalan Menon, Shri. V. Manu, Spl.G.P. to A.G.
Public Interest Litigations must present prima facie evidence of wrongdoing; mere allegations without supporting facts lack merit for judicial intervention.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Public Interest Litigation - The petition seeks to quash the contract awarded for the Safe Kerala Project due to alleged irregularities in the tender process and calls for a court-monitored inquiry into the project’s execution. The petitioners argue that the contract was awarded without proper transparency and adherence to procurement guidelines, claiming corruption and violations of procedural fairness. The state defended the project as necessary for traffic safety improvement, asserting that the tender process followed all lawful protocols. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support claims of mala fides and corruption in PILs. Findings reveal that the petitioners lacked substantive proof of their allegations, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as failing to meet the burden of proof. (Paras 1-38)
Facts of the case:
The Leader of Opposition and another MLA filed the PIL challenging the legality of the contract for the Safe Kerala Project, which was initiated to reduce high road accident rates. They claimed the awarded contract was marred by corruption, unreasonable terms, and a non-transparent process. The project involved the installation of AI cameras and aimed to enhance safety measures on roads in Kerala.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not present adequate evidence to back their claims of corruption or procedural improprieties, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient in public interest litigations.
Issues: Whether the petitioners provided sufficient evidence for allegations of corruption and whether a court-monitored inquiry was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a PIL to proceed in matters involving alleged corruption, there must be a prima facie case established from credible evidence; mere suspicions or allegations without substantial proof are inadequate.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the public interest litigation (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. government's initiative on road safety measures (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. proposal and structure of the safe kerala project (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. detailed plans for automated traffic enforcement (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. evaluation of project funding models (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. approval of project proposals by relevant committees (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. formal work order and project implementation details (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. petitioners' allegations and request for inquiry (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. arguments presented by petitioners (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. defense by the advocate general (Para 21 , 22) |
| 11. judicial guidelines on public interest litigation (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 12. supreme court precedents guiding court discretion (Para 26 , 27) |
| 13. court's views on allegations and evidence standards (Para 28 , 29) |
| 14. tender process and standards of eligibility (Para 30 , 31) |
| 15. subcontracting issues and adherence to tender terms (Para 32 , 33) |
| 16. data privacy concerns and responses (Para 34 , 35) |
| 17. final judgment on the merits of the case (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Basant Balaji J.
The Leader of the Opposition of Kerala Legislative Assembly and an elected member of the Legislative Assembly have filed this Public interest litigation Petition for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibits-P3 and P27 and to quash the same;
ii. Issue a Writ declaring that the 7th Respondent is unqualified to participate in the tender process instituted by the issuance of Exhibit- P6 tender document, as they do not have any expertise in traffic signal monitory and since they do not satisfy the stipulations that are provided in Exhibit-P6;‘
iii. Issue a Writ directing a Court monitored enquiry into the project for Automated Traffic Enforcement System for Safe Kerala and its execution;
iv. Issue a writ declaring that Exhibit-P5 service level agreement between Motor Vehicle Department and the 6th Respondent, Exhibit- P12 letter of intent issued by the 6th Respondent to the 7th Respondent, Exhibit-P14 agreement between the 6th and 7th Respondent, are per se illegal and ought to be set aside;
2. To tackle Kerala’s high rate of road accidents, which exceeds the national average and ranks fifth in India, the Government has launched a new initiative. The manual enforcement efforts were deemed insufficient, prompting the Government to act on the recommendations of the Supreme Court’s Committee on Road Safety. The 5th respondent was directed to implement effective measures to reduce accidents and fatalities. As a result, Sri. P.D. Sunil Babu, a retired Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) and former Special Officer for the Safe Zone Project in Sabarimala, was appointed as a Traffic Safety Expert in the Kerala Road Safety Authority. His task was to prepare a comprehensive project report to improve road safety in the state.
3. On 30 June 2017, the Traffic Safety Expert, P.D. Sunil Babu, submitted a comprehensive report. This report outlined a road safety mission and strategies aimed at reducing accidents and improving transportation efficiency. It identified the primary causes of accidents, proposed mitigation measures, and set specific targets. Key recommendations included establishing control stations in every district and increasing the staff of the Motor Vehicle Department (M V Department).
4. The submitted proposal included a detailed plan for enhancing road safety. Key components of this plan were establishment of 14 fully equipped control stations, creation of new positions within the MV Department, from Regional Transport Officers (RTOs) to peons, acquisition of 65 new vehicles and the installation of wireless communication systems for patrolling teams, deployment of surveillance cameras along National Highways, State Highways, other major roads, junctions, and check posts. These cameras would be linked to the district control stations. The expert projected that these measures
