High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2015-06-02Writ petition disposed of; no interference with...

Sankaranarayanan v State of Kerala, Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission, Principal Secretary Public Works Department, Kerala Monorail Corporation Limited (renamed Kerala Rapid Transit Corporation Ltd), Mr. Sheik Pareed IAS, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Shri. E. Sreedharan

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 16363 of 2015 (S)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2015-06-02
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of as premature; the Court cannot interfere with policy-level decisions at this stage, as final modalities and appointments have not been resolved. The petition is closed without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to challenge the matter when a cause of action arises.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; no interference with policy decisions at this stage; premature; petition closed without prejudice to future challenge when cause arises.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sankaranarayanan

Respondents

State of Kerala
Union of India
Central Vigilance Commission
Principal Secretary Public Works Department, Kerala
Kerala Monorail Corporation Limited (sought to be renamed as Kerala Rapid Transit Corporation Ltd)
Mr. Sheik Pareed IAS
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd
Shri. E. Sreedharan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
• SRI.P.J.JOSE
• SRI.K.O.MANUEL (KOPRAMB)

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.N.NAGARESH, Assistant Solicitor General
• SRI.TOM K. THOMAS, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
• SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN, SC, DELHI METRO RAIL CORPN.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges the Kerala government’s proposed appointment of a general consultant for the monorail/light metro projects in Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode through nomination rather than through a global tender. The petitioner, claiming pro bono publico status with knowledge of metro/rapid transit systems, contends that transparency requires competitive bidding and that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary state action. He relies on Nagar Nigam Meerut v. Al-Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. and others (2006) to emphasize the Supreme Court’s endorsement of electronic tendering in public contracts. The government has only produced the Detailed Project Report (October 2014) by DMRC, and concrete decisions on project implementation and assignment remain undecided. The court notes that the final arrangement—whether the work will be entrusted to the 7th and 8th respondents or another agency—is still to be decided and no tender process has yet been initiated. Consequently, the court regards the petition as premature and declines to interfere with policy decisions at this stage, indicating that meaningful judicial intervention is unwarranted until there is a concrete cause of action. The petition is closed without prejudice to any future challenge when action becomes ripe.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14, Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the government’s plan to award the general consultant contract for the monorail/light metro projects by nomination bypasses competition and violates Article 14. He urges adherence to a transparent process, citing Nagar Nigam Meerut v. Al-Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. to validate the preference for tendering/e-tendering. At this stage, the petitioner asserts, the DPR (prepared by DMRC) and the decision-making process have not reached finality, and premature interference would undermine legitimate policy considerations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that policy decisions regarding project implementation are executive prerogatives and should not be judicially micromanaged. They point to the Detailed Project Report and ongoing procedural deliberations, highlighting that no final decision on implementation, entity assignment, or tendering has been made. They argue that the court should refrain from intervening in a policy matter at a preliminary stage and that Article 14 claims are premature without an actionable adverse action.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nagar Nigam Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd and others	2006 (13) SCC 382	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that e-tendering/tender transparency is a recognized standard in public contract awarding by the Supreme Court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sankaranarayanan v State of Kerala, Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission, Principal Secretary Public Works Department, Kerala Monorail Corporation Limited (renamed Kerala Rapid Transit Corporation Ltd), Mr. Sheik Pareed IAS, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Shri. E. Sreedharan and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/12TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 16363 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : - ---------------- SANKARANARAYANAN V AGED 40 YEARS S/O.N.VISWANATHAN, DEVAGIRI, THIRUMALA ARAMADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 006. BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.P.J.JOSE SRI.K.O.MANUEL (KOPRAMB) RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 2. UNION OF INDIA - REP. BY SECRETARY DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT METRORAIL CELL NIRMAL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 108. 3. THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER O/O THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER SATARKTA BHAVAN, BLOCK-A, GPO COMPLEX INA, NEW DELHI-110 023. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 5. THE KERALA MONORAIL CORPORATION LIMITED TC 4/1654, MAYOORAM, NO.7 BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (SOUGHT TO BE RENAMED AS KERALA RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION LTD.) REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 695 001. WP(C).No. 16363 of 2015 (S) -------------------------------- 6. MR. SHEIK PAREED. I.A.S MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA MONORAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, TC 4/1654 MAYOORAM, NO.7, BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (SOUGHT TO BE RENAMED AS KERALA RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION LTD. PIN-695 001. 7. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. NBCC PLACE, BHEESHMA PITHA MAH MARG., PRAGATHI VIHAR NEW DELHI-110 003. 8. SHRI.E.SREEDHARAN, AGED 82 YEARS PRINCIPAL ADVISOR, DELHI METRORAIL CORPORATION LTD. 5TH FLOOR, A WING, METRO BHAVAN FIRE BRIGADE LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.TOM K. THOMAS R7 BY SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN, SC, DELHI METRO RAIL CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16363 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- - P1- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 28.09.2013 BEARING NO.GO(MS) NO.318/2013/LSGD. - P2- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.23/7/2007 DATED 05.07.2007. - P3- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT DEALING WITH APPOINTMENT OF CONSULTMENTS-COMMON IRREGULARITIES/LAPSES BY CVC. - P4- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT DATED MAY, 2009 TITLED SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS ISSUED BY SECRETARIAT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, PLANNING COMMISSION, GOVT.OF INDIA. - P5- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF TENDER NOTICE, CHENNAI METRO (PAGES 1 AND 2). - P6- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF INITIAL PAGES OF THE TENDER NOTICE, NAVI MUMBAI METRO. - P7- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF INITIAL PAGES OF THE TENDER NOTICE ISSUED BY BANGALORE METRO RAIL LIMITED. - P8- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS APPEARED IN THE TIMES OF INDIA DAILY DATED. - P9- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. - P10- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CHAPTER X CONTAINED SPECIFIC STATEMENTS REGARDING THE STAND OF DMRC AGAINST LIGHT METRO. - P11- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FORWARD DATED 02.06.2012 SUBMITTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT. - P12- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TYPE WRITTEN LETTER ISSUED FROM THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. - P13- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ON THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTICIPATION SCHEME ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT ON 16.05.2015. - P14- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CAG REPORT NO.13/13 HAS COME UP SEVERELY AGAINST THE 7TH RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 16363 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------- - P15- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PRESS TRUST OF INDIA DATED 24.4.2013. - P16- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED BY 7TH RESPONDENT. - P17- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.75/12/04 DATED 24.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P18- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2012. - P19- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO RESPONDENTS 1,4,5 AND 6 WITH COPY TO A NUMBER OF AUTHORITIES DATED 16.05.2015. - P20- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION TO RESPONDENTS 1,4,5 AND 6 WITH COPY TO A NUMBER OF AUTHORITIES DATED 21.05.2015. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16363 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Shaffique, J.** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that the proposed move of the 1[st] respondent State to advert to the process of nomination as against the accepted and well declared process of global tendering in the matter of appointment of the general consultant for the monorail/light metro projects at Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode is illegal and against the principles contained under Article 14 which is highlighted by the Apex Court in the decision reported in “Nagar Nigam Meerut v. Al-Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd and others” and issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents No.1 and 5 and any other respondents connected with assignment of contract of the said project to forthwith stop all process of appointment by nomination. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the respondents NO.1, 4, 5 and 6 or the concerned among them to forthwith take action to invite global tenders to appoint General consultant for the monorail/light metro projects at Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner, claims to be a _pro bono publico_ , has approached this Court inter alia contending that he is a person WP(C) No. 16363 of 2015 -:2:- having knowledge in the matter of Metro/Rapid Transit Rail Systems which are being introduced in Major Cities of different States. It is submitted that the establishment of mono-rail project/light metro is being implemented by the Government of Kerala in two cities, Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. The contention raised by the petitioner is that being a Government contract transparency to the maximum is to be adverted to especially in the case of establishment of mono rail project. Under normal circumstances e-tendering process is being done for awarding the contracts in different categories of works which is accepted by the Supreme Court in **Nagar Nigam Meerut v. - Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd and others** [2006 (13) SCC 382]. As far as the present project now envisaged by the Government of Kerala is concerned, the complaint of the petitioner is that the State of Kerala is proceeding in a manner to award the contract on nomination basis. This according to the petitioner is in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is arbitrary. WP(C) No. 16363 of 2015 -:3:- 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the averments made in the writ petition, it is clear that, as matters stand now, the Government has only prepared a Detailed Project Report (for short 'DPR'), which is produced as Ext.P16 in this case. As far as the DPR is concerned, it is prepared by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited in October 2014 and various recommendations have been made as to how the project should be implemented. It is apparent from the other documents produced that the final decision in regard to the recommendations made in the DPR is yet to be taken by the Government. Whether the entire work will be entrusted to respondents 7 and 8 or to any other agency are matters to be considered by the Government at the time when the Project is being implemented. As matters stand now, there is no finality on the said issues. 4. Under such circumstances, we do not think that this Court can interfere with such policy decisions of the Government at this stage of proceedings and therefore we are of the view that the Writ Petition is premature. WP(C) No. 16363 of 2015 -:4:- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the intention of the Government is to award the work in relation to the present project to respondents 7 and 8. It is submitted that unless a tender procedure is adopted, there will not be transparency in the matter. It is apparent that such decision has not yet been taken by the Government and it is not proper for this Court to interfere at this stage. Accordingly, we do not think that the directions as sought for can be granted at this stage of proceedings and we do not intend to interfere at a stage when the Government is only considering the project and modalities are being worked out. Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate the matter as and when cause of action arises. **Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/03/06