Summary
Public interest litigation—Temple procurement—Cardamom for Aravana Prasadam. A former supplier and participant in cancelled tenders challenged an urgent local purchase. The Court held that the petition pursued the rival supplier’s commercial interest and should not have been entertained as a PIL. The procurement was fair and justified by failed tenders and the impending season. The High Court orders were set aside; applicability of food-safety legislation to the Board was left undecided.
Issues
- Whether a commercially interested supplier could maintain the purported PIL challenging procurement.
- Whether urgent local procurement after failed tenders was arbitrary.
- Whether the Court needed to decide the Board’s status under food-safety legislation.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review in procurement is restrained and directed to legality rather than commercial wisdom. PIL cannot be used to advance a rival supplier’s private commercial grievance. (¶ 19–23)
- Applicability to the Travancore Devaswom Board, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006The food-business-operator issue was expressly not decided because the writ petition failed on maintainability; the judgment grants no general exemption for religious offerings. (¶¶ 18, 23)
Held
- The writ petitioner had supplied cardamom previously and participated in the two cancelled tenders. Although these facts were not concealed, its prayer to cancel the rival’s purchase showed a commercial interest. The High Court should not have entertained this proceeding as a PIL for personal gain. (¶ 20–21)
- After two tenders failed to produce suitable-quality bids, the approaching festive season justified invoking the urgency clause. Notice-board invitations, laboratory testing and price negotiations afforded a fair opportunity; awarding the supply order to the lowest qualifying supplier was legal, fair and transparent on these facts. (¶¶ 22, 25)
- Since the petition should have failed on maintainability, the question whether the Board was governed as a food business operator under the Act did not arise for determination. The Board’s claimed religious exemption and the ASG’s submissions were not adopted as a final statutory holding. (¶¶ 15.2, 17–18, 23)
- The FSSAI report obtained in the appeal found the sampled prasadam fit for consumption. Nevertheless, because the Board chose not to distribute the aged stock, the Court had directed its destruction or disposal through the appropriate State procedure with the Board’s cooperation. This disposal was not a finding that the tested prasadam was unsafe. (¶¶ 13–15, 24)
- Both impugned High Court orders were set aside, and the Court held there was no illegality or arbitrariness in awarding the contract. No costs were ordered. (¶ 25–27)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside. Procurement upheld; food-safety applicability left undecided. Earlier directions for procedural disposal of the stock recorded; no costs.