A court case in Kerala has stirred up quite the sandstorm over bidding processes and potential financial losses. Let's break it down.
On November 27, 2025, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, with Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., heard a case brought by Shaji P.M. He challenged how the Kerala Irrigation Department was awarding contracts. Shaji argued that these contracts were causing a big loss to the state’s money.
The state noticed that sediment was reducing the storage capacity of reservoirs. So, they decided to remove the sediment. This meant taking out and selling the sand. On August 6, 2024, bids were invited for removing sediment from three locations in Palakkad District, with costs estimated at over ₹12 crore each.
Shaji pointed out that the highest bid was ₹2,151.66 per m³, which was ₹423.24 less than the local market rate. This could mean a loss of about ₹15.46 crore to the state. Despite this, the contract was awarded to K.P. Divakaran.
"The Government is losing a substantial source of revenue," Shaji argued.
A major point of disagreement was the deduction of sieving charges. The government claimed these charges were necessary to make the sand usable. But Shaji argued that these deductions were not clearly explained.
The court found that there were no clear rules on how sieving charges should be calculated. They noted that this lack of clarity could lead to random decisions and significant financial losses.
The Finance Secretary later filed a statement highlighting problems in the bidding process. They suggested either canceling the contract or inviting new bids with clearer rules to prevent losses.
"The tender may either be cancelled or fresh tenders may be invited," said the Finance Department.
The court directed that all documents be reviewed by the Chief Secretary of Kerala. They emphasized the need to revise the Standard Operating Procedure for issuing contracts, especially concerning sieving charges.
The Chief Secretary has been given a timeline to take necessary actions. The court disposed of the petition but left the door open for future reviews to ensure transparency and prevent financial loss.
