1. Approval sought for awarding specialized parking infrastructure improvement works to a state corporation for facilitating AI-based traffic management during an approaching major pilgrimage season. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
Travancore Devaswom Board – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Kerala State Audit Department – Respondent
DBA NO. 18 OF 2026
Important Points
In exceptional circumstances where immediate public safety and convenience are at stake, the court may allow the awarding of public works without competitive bidding, provided strict contemporaneous records are maintained to ensure subsequent financial accountability and audit scrutiny.
Subject
Civil - Administrative Law
Headnote
(A) Public Works and Infrastructure - Project Management Consultancy (PMC) mode - Accreditation of agencies - Award of contract without competitive bidding - Balancing financial propriety with immediate public interest.
(B) Public Interest and Emergency - When the immediate requirements of public safety, convenience, and traffic regulation are paramount, particularly during a mass pilgrimage event, the court may permit the execution of essential works without calling for tenders, provided that the urgency does not dispense with the requirement for strict financial accountability and contemporaneous documentation for subsequent audit scrutiny. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The Travancore Devaswom Board sought approval to execute civil works for redesigning parking lots at Nilackal Base Camp to facilitate AI-based surveillance and traffic management. The Board proposed to entrust the work to the Kerala Police Housing & Construction Corporation Limited (KPHCC) under PMC mode. The Kerala State Audit Department objected to the proposal, citing a lack of comparative market-rate assessments, insufficient technical justification for the quantities of work, and the absence of a competitive bidding process to ensure transparency and fairness.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Board had acted with undue delay, as directions for technological integration had been issued as early as March 2026. However, with the pilgrimage season commencing imminently and the high volume of expected pilgrims, withholding permission for the works would jeopardize pilgrim safety and traffic management.
Issues: Whether the urgent need for public safety and infrastructure during a pilgrimage outweighs the procedural necessity of competitive bidding and prior audit approval in the awarding of public works.
Ratio Decidendi: In exceptional circumstances where larger public interest (such as safety and order during a massive influx of people) is involved, procedural lapses in procurement and audit objections can be temporarily overlooked to allow the work to proceed, on the condition that rigorous documentation is maintained for later verification by audit authorities.
Result: Application allowed.
(B) Public Interest and Emergency - When the immediate requirements of public safety, convenience, and traffic regulation are paramount, particularly during a mass pilgrimage event, the court may permit the execution of essential works without calling for tenders, provided that the urgency does not dispense with the requirement for strict financial accountability and contemporaneous documentation for subsequent audit scrutiny. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The Travancore Devaswom Board sought approval to execute civil works for redesigning parking lots at Nilackal Base Camp to facilitate AI-based surveillance and traffic management. The Board proposed to entrust the work to the Kerala Police Housing & Construction Corporation Limited (KPHCC) under PMC mode. The Kerala State Audit Department objected to the proposal, citing a lack of comparative market-rate assessments, insufficient technical justification for the quantities of work, and the absence of a competitive bidding process to ensure transparency and fairness.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Board had acted with undue delay, as directions for technological integration had been issued as early as March 2026. However, with the pilgrimage season commencing imminently and the high volume of expected pilgrims, withholding permission for the works would jeopardize pilgrim safety and traffic management.
Issues: Whether the urgent need for public safety and infrastructure during a pilgrimage outweighs the procedural necessity of competitive bidding and prior audit approval in the awarding of public works.
Ratio Decidendi: In exceptional circumstances where larger public interest (such as safety and order during a massive influx of people) is involved, procedural lapses in procurement and audit objections can be temporarily overlooked to allow the work to proceed, on the condition that rigorous documentation is maintained for later verification by audit authorities.
Result: Application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Biju
For the Respondents: K. R. Sunil
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Biju
For the Respondents: K. R. Sunil
Table of Contents
2. The applicant asserts urgent necessity for infrastructural readiness, whereas the audit authority challenges the technical justifications, cost estimates, and the process of selecting the executing agency. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 )
3. The court noted that while audit objections regarding financial propriety and planning delays are valid, public safety and traffic management exigencies demand permitting urgent, time-sensitive infrastructural intervention. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Compelling public interest and pilgrim safety during urgent seasonal exigencies may justify procedural deviations in project execution, provided strict financial accountability and contemporaneous documentation requirements are maintained. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. The application is allowed, granting permission for the execution of works while mandating maintenance of complete, auditable project records and strict adherence to financial and procedural accountability. (Para 21 )
6. Can procedural and financial scrutiny be bypassed for urgent public works due to seasonal exigencies?
No. While immediate public needs like pilgrim safety may permit proceeding with urgent works, the court explicitly held that such permission does not dispense with requirements for financial accountability, technical scrutiny, or proper documentation. (Para 20 , 21 )
7. What is the consequence of failing to plan infrastructural works in advance for large-scale public events?
The court indicated that failure to plan in advance leads to last-minute interventions that impede transparency, auditability, and fair competition, noting that projects of this nature must be initiated well ahead of time. (Para 13 , 18 )
8. What documentation obligations rest on authorities when executing state-funded development projects?
Authorities must maintain contemporaneous records, including measurements, billings, and deployment data, ensuring that all expenditure is clearly supported, accounted for, and open to verification by the audit department. (Para 21 )
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
This Devaswom Board Application has been filed seeking approval for the execution of the work titled “Improvements and Redesigning of the Existing Parking Lots at Nilackal Base Camp Based on the AI Camera Infrastructure Developed by the Police Department”, and permission to award the contract for the said work to M/s Kerala Police Housing & Construction Corporation Limited (KPHCC).
2. It is stated that, in anticipation of the ensuing Mandala-Makaravilakku pilgrimage season, a joint site inspection was conducted at Nilackal on 07.10.2026 by officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Kerala State Police Department and technical experts and engineers of the agency entrusted with the installation of the AI camera system. During the inspection, the technical team identified certain essential site-preparation works, earthwork and allied civil engineering interventions that would have to be completed before the physical installation and operationalisation of the AI-based surveillance and parking management network. It is further stated that, with a view to optimising camera coverage and enabling automated vehicle tracking, the Police Department recommended that the existing 21 fragmented parking grounds be reorganised into 11 integrated parking zones.
3. It is stated that, based on the technical requirements identified by the Police Department, the Executive Engineer, Sabarimala Development Project, Pathanamthitta, prepared and submitted a detailed estimate for carrying out the requisite civil works at the Nilackal Base Camp. A copy of the Estimate Report prepared by the Executive Engineer, Sabarimala Development Project, Pathanamthitta, has been produced before this Court as Annexure-A1. It is further stated that the Police Department has finalised the tender proceedings for the installation of AI-based cameras across the various parking segments at Nilackal on the basis of the infrastructure requirements reflected in the said estimate.
4. It is further stated that the consolidation of the existing parking grounds into 11 distinct zones would necessitate extensive civil engineering interventions. These include the erection of appropriate boundary fencing to demarcate and segregate the adjoining parking zones, as well as the closure of unauthorised entry and exit points. New internal access roads are also required to be laid using Granular Sub-Base (GSB) material to facilitate smooth and uninterrupted vehicular movement. In addition, the terrain requires grading, levelling and slope correction, together with the removal of obstructions, trees and dilapidated temporary structures. According to the Board, these preparatory works are essential to ensure an unobstructed line of sight for the AI cameras, thereby enabling effective automated surveillance, accurate vehicle tracking and efficient traffic management within the parking complex.
5. It is further stated that, even before the estimate was finalised, the Managing Director of M/s. Kerala Police Housing & Construction Corporation Limited (KPHCC) had addressed a communication to the Board, requesting that the proposed infrastructure development and allied civil works be entrusted to KPHCC under the Project Management Consultancy (PMC) mode. A copy of the said communication has been produced before this Court as Annexure-A2.
6. According to the Board, KPHCC is an agency accredited by the State Government for the execution of public works, and the relevant accreditation certificate has been produced as Annexure-A3. The accreditation granted to the Corporation for undertaking departmental works under the Project Management Consultancy (PMC) mode has also been produced before this Court as Annexures-A4 and A5.
7. It is stated that the Board considered the matter, taking into account the technical urgency of the propose
