MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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