LexTHE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD versus AYYAPPA SPICES & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 363 : 2024 INSC 183 The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3866-3867 of 2024) 06 March 2024 [A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should have been entertained by the High Court; and whether the appellant- Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1) (j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Headnotes Judicial review – Public tenders for procurement – Interested party invoking writ jurisdiction, exercise of power of judicial review – Contract by tender for sourcing raw material (cardamom) for preparation of Aravana Prasadam in the Sabarimala Temple – Eventually, respondent no.2 was given supply orders for cardamom – High Court allowing the writ petition filed as a PIL by respondent no.1 inter alia directed prosecution of the appellant-Board for violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and held that the appellant is a ‘food business operator’ as per s.3(1)(j), 2006 Act – Correctness: Held: In matters of public tenders for procurement, judicial review is restrained– Constitutional courts should exercise caution while interfering in contractual and tender matters disguised as public interest litigations – In cases where a party invoking writ jurisdiction has been a participant in the tender process, courts should be slow and cautious in exercising the power of judicial review – Respondent no.1 had earlier supplied cardamom to the appellant and had also participated in the two tenders released by the appellant which were later cancelled – Its real grievance was about the grant of contract in favour of respondent no.2– Being an interested party, respondent no.1 could not have invoked the jurisdiction of High Court – Writ petition also challenged the manner in which the cardamom was sourced – Appellant initially 364 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports tried to purchase cardamom by issuing tenders and calling for bids, not just once, but twice over – However, these tenders were cancelled since none of the bidders supplied cardamom of appropriate quality– It was in these compelling circumstances, considering the impending festive season and the imminent need to prepare a humungous quantity of Aravana Prasadam, that the appellant invoked the urgency clause in its regulations to procure cardamom from local sources – Thus, it cannot be said that the decision was arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable – All the prospective bidders were given a fair chance as the notice to purchase cardamom was published on the notice board of the Temple – Cardamom samples submitted by the bidders were then tested in a lab, which was established by the Commissioner of Food Safety as per an order of the High Court – Thereafter, price negotiations were conducted and respondent no.2 was given supply orders after quoting the lowest rates – Decision of the appellant was legal, fair and transparent – High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 and should have dismissed it on the question of maintainability itself – In this view of the matter, issue no.2 relating to applicability of the Act to the appellant does not arise for consideration – No illegality/arbitrariness in awarding the contract to respondent no.2– Impugned interim order and the judgment passed by High Court, set aside. [Paras 19, 21-23, 25] Case Law Cited Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, [2003] Supp. 5 SCR 716 : (2004) 3 SCC 349; UFLEX Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, [2021] 7 SCR 571 – relied on. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 : (1981) Supp SCC 87; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, [1994] Supp. 2 SCR 122 : (1994) 6 SCC 651; Michigan Rubber v. State of Karnataka, [2012] 8 SCR 128 : (2012) 8 SCC 216; Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors., [2019] 6 SCR 950 : (2019) 14 SCC 81 – referred to. List of Acts Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 365 The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors. List of Keywords Sabarimala Temple; Public tenders; Contractual/Tender Matters; Public Interest Litigation (PILs); Judicial review; Illegality/ arbitrariness; Interested party; Writ jurisdiction; Writ petition maintainability. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.3866-3867 of 2024 From the Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.