Transparency In Tendering Cannot Be Compromised | KSEB Must Publish All Work Contracts Online Within Four Months | Kerala High Court Says Public Interest Prevails Over Technical Objections
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. disposed of a writ petition with a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to initiate infrastructural and procedural arrangements to enable online publication of all work contracts. The Court directed that this system be instituted within four months from the date of judgment. This directive was issued in response to a plea seeking greater transparency in the dissemination of contract work information, particularly regarding minor and local electrical works under the Board’s supervision.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking multiple forms of relief, including the quashing of a communication issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the issuance of experience certificates. However, during the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that they were pressing only for the fifth prayer, which sought a direction to the third respondent, the Executive Engineer of KSEB Aluva Division, to publish work details and quotations of concerned sections on the official website of the Board.
The communication in question—Exhibit P4—was a circular dated 25 July 2018, issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kalamassery Subdivision. It listed seven contractors and warned of violations of safety protocols in executing dangerous electrical works. The circular also cited a fatal accident in February 2018 involving a member of the workers’ group while working under the Electrical Section, Thrikkakara, under the Electrical Division, Thripunithura. The circular indicated that if any accidents occurred due to negligence, field supervisors would be held accountable.
In response, the petitioners filed several complaints and representations with the relevant authorities, including the 2nd respondent KSEB and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. They sought formal recognition of their experience and greater transparency in the process of work allocation.
Respondents 2 to 5 contested the maintainability of the petition, disputing the locus standi of the petitioners. They contended that the petitioners were not entitled to relief since they were not regular contractors and the internal administrative decisions of the Board were outside the purview of the petition.
An additional counter-affidavit filed by KSEB acknowledged practical limitations in implementing the petitioners' demand. The Board stated that the current staffing strength, particularly in the Information Technology wing, rendered it difficult to operationalize an online publication system for all minor contracts across sections. They requested a minimum time frame of three months to arrange the necessary infrastructure and procedural framework for online publication.
The affidavit also stated that advance publication of tenders was not feasible in emergency situations, such as those caused by natural disasters, accidents, or electrical hazards. However, for routine works, the Board assured the Court that wide publicity and a transparent process were generally followed in accordance with existing norms.
The Court recorded the specific statements made in the counter affidavit and acknowledged the operational challenges stated by the Board. It took into account the justification provided regarding emergency situations but stressed the importance of transparency for all other categories of work.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. recorded: “It is humbly submitted that the present staffing strength, particularly in key functional units such as the Information Technology wing at Trivandrum, renders it impracticable to implement a mechanism for the publication of petty work contracts across all sections of KSEBL. Accordingly, it is prayed that a reasonable time period may be granted to operationalize such a system.”
He further noted the following submission from the Board: “In cases involving emergency works, such as those necessitated by breakdowns due to accidents, natural calamities, or electrical hazards posing an imminent threat to life or property, advance publication of tender notices is neither feasible nor advisable.”
Justice Nias took a balanced view of the matter and acknowledged the argument regarding the petitioners' locus standi. However, the Court prioritized public interest and the need to ensure procedural fairness. He stated: “Though I find substantial force in the argument of the learned standing counsel for the KSEB on the locus of the petitioner, taking into account the public interest and to ensure transparency, the following directions are issued.”
The Court granted a period of four months to the Board to establish adequate infrastructural, human resource, and procedural arrangements for enabling the publication of all work contracts on its website, aimed at preventing allegations of favouritism in the awarding of contracts.
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no findings made on the other prayers initially sought by the petitioners.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: P.B. Ajoy, Advocate
For the Respondents: G. Keerthivas, Advocate; Riji Rajendran, Advocate; Senior Government Pleader Smt. Surya Binoy
Case Title: T.N. Gopalan @ T.N. Gopalakrishnan & Others v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:31896
Case Number: WP(C) No. 30475 of 2018
Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.
[Read/Download order]
