Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling on Aravana Prasadam: Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Ayyappa Spices (2024) INSC 183

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 06, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 183

Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a business rival use a public interest litigation to challenge a tender process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal related to the supply of cardamom for the preparation of Aravana Prasadam at the Sabarimala Temple. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Kerala should have entertained a writ petition filed by a previous supplier who had a clear business interest in the tender process. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the temple and prepares the prasadam, qualifies as a “food business operator” under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with the opinion authored by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The Travancore Devaswom Board, a statutory body, manages several temples, including the Sabarimala Temple. A significant part of its function is the preparation and distribution of Aravana Prasadam, a religious offering. The board procures raw materials like cardamom through tenders. In 2021, Ayyappa Spices (Respondent No. 1) successfully supplied 9000 kg of cardamom. For the period from 01.11.2022 to 30.09.2023, the board issued a tender on 16.06.2022, which was canceled due to pesticide contamination in the samples. A second tender on 24.08.2022 was also canceled for the same reason.

As the festive season approached, the board invoked an urgency clause and authorized the Executive Officer of Sabarimala Temple to procure cardamom locally. A notice was placed on the temple notice board on 04.11.2022, inviting quotations. Four bids were received, and after testing at the Quality Testing Laboratory at Pamba, two samples failed. After price negotiations, respondent no. 2 was given supply orders for 7000 kg of cardamom. However, re-examination at the Government Analysts Lab, Thiruvananthapuram, on 03.12.2022, revealed pesticide levels above the permissible limit.

Ayyappa Spices, who had participated in the earlier tenders, then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, seeking an analysis of the purchased cardamom and cancellation of the local purchase due to lack of open competition. The High Court directed further testing, which repeatedly confirmed the presence of unsafe levels of pesticides. Consequently, on 11.01.2023, the High Court restrained the board from distributing Aravana Prasadam and sealed the warehouse.

The Board filed an application seeking permission to draw samples of the sealed Aravana Prasadam and have it tested at a FSSAI accredited laboratory. The High Court dismissed this application and affirmed its earlier order, directing prosecution of the Board under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and ordering the destruction of the seized stock. The Travancore Devaswom Board then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala initially took cognizance of the matter based on the writ petition filed by Ayyappa Spices. The High Court directed multiple tests of the cardamom samples, all of which indicated that the cardamom was unsafe due to high levels of pesticides. Consequently, the High Court restrained the Travancore Devaswom Board from distributing the Aravana Prasadam and ordered the sealing of the warehouse where it was stored. The Board’s application to test the Aravana Prasadam itself was dismissed. The High Court also declared the Board to be a “food business operator” under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and ordered the destruction of the seized stock and initiation of criminal proceedings. The Travancore Devaswom Board appealed these orders to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The High Court had held that the Travancore Devaswom Board is a “food business operator” as defined under Section 3(1)(j) of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 3(1)(j) of the Act states:

“food business operator” in relation to food business means a person by whom the business is carried on or owned and is responsible for ensuring the compliance of this Act, rules and regulations made thereunder.

The High Court also invoked the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, to emphasize the obligation of food business operators to ensure the safety of food sold or distributed.

Arguments

Appellant (Travancore Devaswom Board) Arguments:

• The writ petition was motivated and filed by a business rival (Respondent No. 1) who had previously supplied cardamom and participated in the canceled tenders. The High Court should have dismissed the petition at the outset due to this vested interest. The Appellant relied on S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 to support this contention.

• The Board is not a “food business operator” as the Aravana Prasadam is not sold for profit but is an offering to devotees with religious significance. Subjecting it to stringent regulations under the Act would hinder its purpose and function. The Board takes all measures to ensure the health of devotees is not compromised and the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, do not contemplate regulating religious offerings integral to religious and cultural practices.

• The decision to procure cardamom locally was made due to compelling circumstances after the failure of two tenders. The Board invoked the urgency clause in its regulations and the decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Respondent No. 1 (Ayyappa Spices) Arguments:

• The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initiated to highlight malpractices in the administration of the Sabarimala Temple, particularly the opaque manner in which the supply order was issued to Respondent No. 2 without open tenders and proper quality checks.

• The primary intent was not to hinder the distribution of Aravana Prasadam but to ensure transparency and quality in the procurement process.

Respondent (FSSAI) Arguments:

• Prasadam is a sacred offering, not meant for appetite satiation, and there is no fundamental or statutory right to enforce a specific standard for it. Judicial review based on an individual’s claim of quality is not permissible.

• The FSSAI did not comment on the factual matrix of the case but confined its arguments to the legal issues.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the writ petition at the behest of Respondent No. 1 should have been entertained by the High Court?
2. Whether the Appellant-Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined under Section 3(1)(j) of the Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Statutes and Regulations:

• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
  • Section 3(1)(j): Definition of “food business operator.”
• Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011
  • Regulations pertaining to the obligations of food business operators.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s interim order dated 27.03.2023 and final judgment dated 11.04.2023. The Court held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in awarding the contract to Respondent No. 2.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651* and other cases related to tender processes were cited to emphasize that judicial review is restrained in matters of public tenders.
• UFLEX Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal Nos. 4862-63 of 2021* was cited to highlight the need for caution while interfering in contractual matters disguised as PILs.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87* and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349* were cited to support the argument that the writ petition should have been dismissed at the threshold due to the petitioner’s vested interest.
• The other cases related to PILs were cited to highlight the importance of bona fide and genuine public interest in PILs.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the writ petitioner, Ayyappa Spices, was an interested party with a vested interest in the tender process. The Court emphasized that public interest litigation should not be used as a tool for personal gain or to settle business rivalries. The Court also noted that the Travancore Devaswom Board had followed due process in the circumstances, given the failure of the earlier tenders and the urgency of the situation. The FSSAI report stating that the Aravana Prasadam was fit for consumption also weighed in the mind of the Court.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, including the petitioner’s vested interest and the Board’s actions, with a secondary emphasis on the legal principles governing public interest litigation and tender processes.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Public interest litigation should not be used to settle business rivalries or for personal gain.
• Courts should be cautious while interfering in contractual and tender matters, especially when the petitioner has a vested interest.
• Religious boards, when procuring materials for religious offerings, may not always be considered as “food business operators” in the traditional sense, although this issue was not definitively decided in this case.
• The decision-making process of a public body, especially during emergencies, should be fair and transparent, and should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Government to destroy/dispose of the existing stock of Aravana Prasadam in an appropriate manner by following the necessary procedure. The Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to extend complete cooperation and ensure that the stock is destroyed/disposed of expeditiously.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by an interested party with a vested interest in a tender process should not be entertained by the High Court. This decision reinforces the principle that public interest litigation should be used for genuine public causes and not for personal or business motives. The Court also reiterated the principle that judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited, and that courts should be cautious while interfering in such matters. Although the court did not decide on the issue of whether the Board is a “food business operator”, it has indirectly indicated that religious offerings may be treated differently from regular food businesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Ayyappa Spices & Ors. overturns the High Court’s ruling, emphasizing that public interest litigation should not be used by business rivals to challenge tender processes. The Court underscored the need for caution in judicial review of contractual matters and highlighted that the Travancore Devaswom Board’s actions were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The case serves as a reminder that PILs should be filed for genuine public causes and not for personal or business motives.