Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

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