A) Abstract / Headnote

This case addressed the legality of tender procurement by the Travancore Devaswom Board for cardamom used in preparing Aravana Prasadam at the Sabarimala Temple. The High Court had allowed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the procurement process and declared the Board a “food business operator” under Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that judicial review in tender matters must respect administrative discretion, especially when public interest litigation masks personal business rivalries.

Keywords:

Sabarimala Temple, Public tenders, Food Safety Act, PIL, Judicial review.

B) Case Details

• Judgment Cause Title: The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.
• Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3866-3867 of 2024
• Judgment Date: March 6, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
• Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
• Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 363 : 2024 INSC 183
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Section 3(1)(j), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
  • Constitutional principles of judicial review in tender matters.
• Judgments Overruled: The High Court of Kerala’s orders dated March 27, 2023, and April 11, 2023.
• Law Subjects: Administrative Law, Public Procurement Law, Food Safety Regulations.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The dispute originated from procurement practices by the Travancore Devaswom Board for cardamom to prepare Aravana Prasadam. Respondent No. 1 alleged irregularities in the tender process, including a lack of transparency. The High Court sided with Respondent No. 1, ordering criminal prosecution against the Board and categorizing it as a “food business operator.” The Board appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the PIL was a front for private business interests and challenging the applicability of the Food Safety Act.

D) Facts of the Case

1. The Travancore Devaswom Board manages temples, including Sabarimala, and oversees the preparation of Aravana Prasadam.
2. To procure cardamom, tenders were issued in June and August 2022. Both were canceled due to non-compliance with safety standards.
3. As the festive season approached, the Board invoked an urgency clause to procure cardamom from local sources.
4. Respondent No. 2 won the contract but faced allegations of supplying substandard cardamom.
5. Respondent No. 1 filed a PIL, alleging non-competitive procurement and safety violations, leading to the High Court’s intervention.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Maintainability of the PIL: Could an interested party file a PIL alleging public interest?
2. Applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Did the Board qualify as a “food business operator” under Section 3(1)(j)?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Against Maintainability:
   • Respondent No. 1 participated in earlier tenders and had personal interests, disqualifying it from filing a PIL.
   • Judicial precedents (e.g., Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349) discourage using PILs for private business disputes.
2. On Food Safety Act Applicability:
   • Aravana Prasadam is a religious offering, not a commercial food product.
   • Subjecting it to the Food Safety Act would undermine religious practices.
3. Transparency and Fairness:
   • The procurement process was forced by urgent circumstances and adhered to due diligence.
   • Samples were tested in government-approved labs.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Transparency Issues:
   • The procurement violated competitive bidding norms.
   • Substandard cardamom jeopardized public health.
2. Public Interest:
   • Highlighting systemic failures in temple administration justified the PIL.
3. Food Safety Compliance:
   • The Board’s activities fell under the Food Safety Act, ensuring accountability for prasadam distribution.

H) Related Legal Provisions

• Section 3(1)(j), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Defines a “food business operator” as any entity involved in food manufacture, storage, or distribution.
• Article 226, Constitution of India: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental and statutory rights.

I) Judgment

Ratio Decidendi:

1. The High Court erred in entertaining a PIL by an interested party, violating principles of judicial restraint in tender matters.
2. The Board’s procurement process, while unconventional, adhered to fair practices given the circumstances.
3. The religious significance of Aravana Prasadam exempted it from commercial food safety regulations.

Obiter Dicta:

1. Courts must scrutinize PILs for vested interests.
2. Strict food safety standards should balance public health and religious traditions.

Guidelines Issued:

1. PILs should demonstrate genuine public interest, not personal or commercial motives.
2. Religious offerings integral to cultural practices may warrant tailored regulatory frameworks.

J) References

Important Cases Referred:

1. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349
2. UFLEX Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, [2021] 7 SCR 571
3. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, [1994] 6 SCC 651

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
2. Constitution of India, Article 226