Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case

Supreme Court Reinstates Tender Process for Sabarimala Temple’s Aravana Prasadam; PIL Dismissed as Camouflage for Business Rivalry

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the Travancore Devaswom Board against the orders of the Kerala High Court, in a case involving the tender process for procuring cardamom for the preparation of Aravana Prasadam in Sabarimala Temple.

The core legal issue centered around the tendering process for procurement and the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a business entity with vested interests.

The case originated from a dispute over the procurement process used by the Travancore Devaswom Board for obtaining cardamom. The Kerala High Court had previously directed prosecution for violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act and tagged the Board as a ‘food business operator’. However, this decision was contested by the Board in the apex court.

On the Maintainability of PIL: The Supreme Court observed, “when there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out.” This was pivotal in determining the non-maintainability of the PIL filed by the respondent, who was an interested party with underlying personal and commercial interests.

On Tender Process Evaluation: The court noted the efforts of the Board to procure quality cardamom, highlighting the transparent and fair nature of the tendering process. It was observed that “the decision of the appellant-Board is legal, fair and transparent.”

On Applicability of Food Safety Act: The court deemed it unnecessary to delve into whether the Board qualifies as a “food business operator” under the Food Safety and Standards Act, given the finding on the PIL’s maintainability.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Kerala High Court, ruling in favor of the Travancore Devaswom Board. It was held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the awarding of the contract to the respondent no.

Date of Decision: March 6, 2024.

Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.,

Latest Legal News