Holding

The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was filed by an interested party, and therefore the Board does not fall within the definition of a food business operator under the Act.

Summary

The Travancore Devaswom Board, which prepares and distributes Aravana Prasadam at Sabarimala Temple, procured cardamom through a series of tenders that were cancelled due to pesticide contamination, and subsequently awarded a supply order to respondent No.2 under an urgency clause. Respondent No.1, a previous supplier and tender participant, filed a public interest litigation challenging the procurement and seeking a re‑examination of the cardamom, leading the Kerala High Court to restrain distribution of the prasadam and to direct prosecution of the Board under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, deeming it a "food business operator". The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because respondent No.1 was an interested party and could not invoke writ jurisdiction, and that the Board’s decision to procure cardamom was lawful, fair and transparent. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and held that the Board does not fall within the definition of a food business operator for the purposes of the Act. The appeals were allowed and the stock of prasadam was ordered to be destroyed as per the State Government’s procedure.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 should have been entertained by the High Court (maintainability and locus standi).
Whether the Travancore Devaswom Board qualifies as a “food business operator” under Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Legislation cited

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006s. 3(1)(j)

Subjects

Sabarimala TemplePublic tendersContractual/Tender MattersPublic Interest Litigation (PILs)Judicial reviewIllegality/arbitrarinessInterested partyWrit jurisdictionWrit petition maintainability

Judgment

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 363 : 2024 INSC 183

The Travancore Devaswom Board
v.
Ayyappa Spices & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3866-3867 of 2024)
06 March 2024
[A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should
have been entertained by the High Court; and whether the appellant-
Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1)
(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Headnotes
Judicial review – Public tenders for procurement – Interested
party invoking writ jurisdiction, exercise of power of judicial
review – Contract by tender for sourcing raw material
(cardamom) for preparation of Aravana Prasadam in the
Sabarimala Temple – Eventually, respondent no.2 was given
supply orders for cardamom – High Court allowing the writ
petition filed as a PIL by respondent no.1 inter alia directed
prosecution of the appellant-Board for violation of the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and held that the appellant
is a ‘food business operator’ as per s.3(1)(j), 2006 Act –
Correctness:
Held: In matters of public tenders for procurement, judicial review
is restrained– Constitutional courts should exercise caution
while interfering in contractual and tender matters disguised as
public interest litigations – In cases where a party invoking writ
jurisdiction has been a participant in the tender process, courts
should be slow and cautious in exercising the power of judicial
review – Respondent no.1 had earlier supplied cardamom to the
appellant and had also participated in the two tenders released
by the appellant which were later cancelled – Its real grievance
was about the grant of contract in favour of respondent no.2–
Being an interested party, respondent no.1 could not have invoked
the jurisdiction of High Court – Writ petition also challenged the
manner in which the cardamom was sourced – Appellant initially

* Author
364 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

tried to purchase cardamom by issuing tenders and calling for
bids, not just once, but twice over – However, these tenders
were cancelled since none of the bidders supplied cardamom of
appropriate quality– It was in these compelling circumstances,
considering the impending festive season and the imminent need
to prepare a humungous quantity of Aravana Prasadam, that
the appellant invoked the urgency clause in its regulations to
procure cardamom from local sources – Thus, it cannot be said
that the decision was arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable – All
the prospective bidders were given a fair chance as the notice
to purchase cardamom was published on the notice board of the
Temple – Cardamom samples submitted by the bidders were
then tested in a lab, which was established by the Commissioner
of Food Safety as per an order of the High Court – Thereafter,
price negotiations were conducted and respondent no.2 was
given supply orders after quoting the lowest rates – Decision of
the appellant was legal, fair and transparent – High Court erred
in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 and
should have dismissed it on the question of maintainability itself
– In this view of the matter, issue no.2 relating to applicability
of the Act to the appellant does not arise for consideration – No
illegality/arbitrariness in awarding the contract to respondent
no.2– Impugned interim order and the judgment passed by High
Court, set aside. [Paras 19, 21-23, 25]

Case Law Cited
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, [2003]
Supp. 5 SCR 716 : (2004) 3 SCC 349; UFLEX Ltd. v.
Government of Tamil Nadu, [2021] 7 SCR 571 – relied
on.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 : (1981)
Supp SCC 87; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, [1994]
Supp. 2 SCR 122 : (1994) 6 SCC 651; Michigan Rubber
v. State of Karnataka, [2012] 8 SCR 128 : (2012) 8
SCC 216; Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited & Ors., [2019] 6 SCR 950 : (2019)
14 SCC 81 – referred to.

List of Acts
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 365

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.

List of Keywords
Sabarimala Temple; Public tenders; Contractual/Tender Matters;
Public Interest Litigation (PILs); Judicial review; Illegality/
arbitrariness; Interested party; Writ jurisdiction; Writ petition
maintainability.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.3866-3867 of
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2023 in IA No.03 of 2023
and dated 11.04.2023 in WP (C) No.41743 of 2022 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam
Appearances for Parties
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew,
Bharat Sood, Ms. Miranda Solaman, Advs. for the Appellant.
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Abhilash M.R., Sayooj Mohandas, Rajkumar,
Vinodh Kanna B., Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena
K Poulose, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Yuvraj Sharma, Vatsal Joshi,
Sandeep Singh, Rukhmini Bobde, T S Sabarish, Anuj Srinivas Udupa,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Tirth and prasad offered at places of worship are regarded as sacred
and bond the worshiper with the worshipped. While in temples and
gurudwaras, prasad or bhog may be an essential part of their religion,
it is not uncommon for other places of worship to serve some food,
toast or drink as a religious offering.
3. As of 2019, it is believed that India has a place of worship for
every 400 people. While in most of these religious places, food is
prepared and served at a large scale on special occasions, there are
hundreds of temples and gurudwaras, which serve tens of thousands
of devotees twice every day. Several temples and gurudwaras have
their own unique and traditional way of preparing the prasad or bhog
366 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

like the Laddu of Tirupati and Karah Prasad of the Golden Temple
at Amritsar1. Though somewhat connected with divine blessing in
the form of prasad or bhog, this case draws us back to aggressive
competing business interests - for supply of 7000 kilograms of
cardamom for making Aravana Prasadam.
4. Travancore Devaswom Board is in appeal challenging the decision
of the High Court of Kerala2 allowing the writ petition filed as
a public interest litigation by respondent company in a contract
by tender for sourcing raw material for preparation of Aravana
Prasadam in the Sabarimala Temple. By the first impugned order
dated 27.03.2023, the High Court confirmed the order restraining
distribution of Aravana Prasadam and by the second impugned
order dated 11.04.2023, the High Court finally allowed the writ
petition and directed – (i) prosecution of the appellant board for
violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 20063; (ii) that the
appellant board is a ‘food business operator’ as per Section 3(1)
(j) of the Act; and (iii) that the seized stock shall be destroyed in
accordance with law.
Facts:
5. The appellant-Board is a statutory and an autonomous body which
manages certain temples in the southern part of India, including the
Sabarimala Temple. One of the many functions of the appellant-
Board, in so far as the Sabarimala Temple is concerned, is the
preparation and distribution of the Aravana Prasadam. The appellant-
Board is also tasked with procuring the raw material necessary for
its preparation. One such raw material is cardamom. In order to
procure the same, the appellant-Board issues tenders in frequent
intervals. Respondent no. 1 was the successful bidder in 2021 and
it supplied 9000 kilograms of cardamom to the appellant-Board for
the years 2021-2022.
6. In order to procure cardamoms for the period from 01.11.2022 to
30.09.2023, the appellant-Board issued a tender on 16.06.2022.

1 Guidance Document for Maintaining Food Safety & Hygiene in Places of Worship, Food Safety and
Standards Authority of India, 1st Edition, January 2018.
2 Arising out of order dated 27.03.2023 in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 and judgment and final order dated
11.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. No. 41743 of 2022.
3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 367

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.

However, this tender was cancelled as all the bidders supplied
cardamom which contained pesticides beyond the permissible
limit. A fresh tender came to be issued on 24.08.2022 and this was
also cancelled for the same reason. It is an admitted position that
respondent no. 1 has participated in these tenders.
7. Since the first two tenders had failed to fetch an appropriate bid,
the appellant-Board issued a third tender on 12.10.2022. However,
as the festive season was fast-approaching, the appellant-Board
was constrained to invoke the urgency clause and authorise the
Executive Officer of Sabarimala Temple to procure cardamom from
local sources. Accordingly, on 04.11.2022, since a decent number
of cardamom traders were present in the temple premises, a notice
inviting quotations along with samples was published on the notice
board of the Sabarimala Temple.
8. Pursuant to the above notice, four bids were received. Respondent no.
1 was not one of them. The cardamom samples submitted by these
four bidders was subjected to testing at the Quality Testing Laboratory
at Pamba, a place located close to the Temple. Two out of the four
samples failed to meet the minimum standards. Subsequent to price
negotiations with the remaining two bidders, respondent no. 2 was
given supply orders aggregating to 7000 kilograms of cardamom.
However, at the instance of the other bidders, the samples submitted
by respondent no. 2 were sent for re-examination to Government
Analysts Lab, Thiruvananthapuram, and the report dated 03.12.2022
said that the cardamom samples submitted by respondent no. 2
contained pesticides above the permissible threshold.
9. It is at this stage that respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before
the High Court seeking the following two reliefs:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction
or order to the respondents to conduct an analysis of the
cardamom which was purchased after cancellation of Ext. P9
tender at Government Analytical Lab Thiruvananthapuram
under the supervision of this Court.
Issue a writ of Certiorari or appropriate writ, direction to
the respondents to cancel the local purchase of cardamom
as it was done without competition and newspaper
advertisement.”
368 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

10. After taking cognizance of the matter, the High Court passed an order
dated 23.12.2022 directing the sample to be subjected to re-examination
at the Government Analyst Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The
resultant report dated 28.12.2022 was nothing different from the
previous report, labelling the cardamom as ‘unsafe’. In fact, even the
Commissioner of Food Safety through his report dated 05.01.2023
termed the product as ‘unsafe’. Further, the High Court through its
order dated 06.01.2023 directed the samples to be sent to the FSSAI
Office at Kochi for re-examination. Even FSSAI, Kochi, termed the
product as ‘unsafe’ through its report dated 11.01.2023. Therefore,
placing reliance on these developments, the High Court of Kerala
by its order dated 11.01.2023 restrained the appellant-Board from
distributing the Aravana Prasadam and directed the sealing of the
warehouse where the Aravana Prasadam was stored.
11. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the appellant-Board filed I.A.
No. 3 of 2023 on 17.01.2023 before the High Court. Through this
application, it sought the following relief:
“[…] permit the petitioners to draw sample, from the stock
of Aravana kept sealed, through the food safety officers and
to send the same for analysis to any laboratory accredited
by FSSAI to test whether the Aravana prasadam confirms
to the food standards prescribed by FSSAI and is safe
for human consumption, in the interest of justice, pending
disposal of the writ petition.”
In this application, it was asserted that the sale of prasadam was
stopped on 11.01.2023. It stated that the available stock of 6,65,159
cans of prasadam, balance stock of 800 grams of cardamom,
and 43.92 kilograms of cardamom powder were sealed. While
this was to be sampled by the Government Analyst’s Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram, the appellant-Board sought that the same be
sampled by another laboratory in parallel.
12. The writ petition itself came to be partly disposed of by the High Court
through the impugned interim order dated 27.03.2023, where the
High Court dismissed the I.A. No. 3 of 2023. The High Court relied
on the tests conducted previously to dismiss the said application. It
further held that the appellant-Board falls under the definition of “food
business operator”, for the purposes of section 3(1)(j) of the Act, with
a co-relative obligation to ensure that the food sold / distributed, and
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 369

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.

the raw material used for its preparation are safe and pure. Eventually,
the final impugned order came to be passed on 11.04.2023 where the
High Court allowed the writ petition, and the impugned interim order
dated 27.03.2023 was affirmed. It further ordered the destruction of
the seized stock and directed that appropriate criminal proceedings
be initiated. The appellant-Board has filed the instant appeals against
the above-referred two orders.
Before this Court:
13. This Court issued notice on 15.05.2023, and stayed the orders
impugned herein. By the same order FSSAI was directed to get an
analysis of the Aravana Prasadam and file a report before this Court.
The relevant portion of this direction is as follows:
“Further, the competent authority under the Food Safety
and Standards of India (FSSAI) shall, in the meanwhile,
take random samples for the stock of Aravanam Prasadam
available and get an analysis done with regard to the quality
and as to whether the same is fit for human consumption.”
14. Pursuant to our direction, the FSSAI got the sample analysed and
filed a report of its opinion before this Court on 12.06.2023. The
relevant portion of the opinion is as follows:
“Opinion:
1. Pesticides mentioned in the analytical report are below
limit of quantification and is satisfactory.
2. Microbiological parameters conforms to ready to eat
grain products and is not substandard. Based on
the above analytical report it is fit for consumption.”
Submissions:
15. At the outset, Sri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant-Board, submitted that even though the report of FSSAI called
by this Court clarifies that the Aravana Prasadam is fit for human
consumption, the appellant-Board is no longer desirous to distribute
the Prasadam in view of the long lapse of time. We had taken note
of the statement and proceeded to hear the submission of the parties.
15.1 On merits, Sri Giri submitted that the writ petition was a
motivated one. It was submitted that respondent no. 1 had
370 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

concealed the fact that he had supplied cardamom in the past
and also that he had contested the earlier two tenders which
later came to be cancelled. It was further submitted that the
filing of the writ petition suggests unresolved business conflicts
and underlying rivalry. In this light, it was contended that the
High Court should not have entertained the writ petition and
should have dismissed it at the very threshold. He relied on
the decisions of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,
(1981) Supp SCC 87 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of
West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 for this purpose.
15.2 The second leg of Mr. Giri’s submission is against the
determination of appellant-Board as a “food business operator”.
It is contended that Aravana Prasadam is not a sale for
revenue or profits, but considered as an offering to devotees.
It was submitted that the Aravana Prasadam holds religious
significance to devotees, and is treated as an offering from
the deity itself. Therefore, subjecting it to stringent regulations
under the Act would hinder its object, purpose and functions.
He also submitted that the Board itself takes all measures to
ensure that the health of the devotees is never compromised.
As a matter of principle, it is submitted that Food Safety and
Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses)
Regulations, 2011, do not contemplate regulating religious
offerings integral to religious and cultural practices.
16. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 made submissions
regarding their bonafide action in initiating the PIL in this case. It
asserted that its primary intent was not to hinder the distribution
of Aravana Prasadam but to highlight malpractices within the
administration of the Sabarimala Temple, one such issue is the
opaque manner in which the supply order was issued to respondent
no. 2 i.e., without open tenders. The respondent no. 1 also raised
an issue regarding the supply order being issued without a proper
quality check.
17. Sri Natraj, learned ASG, representing the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare and FSSAI, submitted that he is not concerned with the
factual matrix of the case but confined his arguments to the legal
issue. He submitted that prasadam is understood as offerings made
to a deity and returned to devotees. It is considered sacred. While
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 371

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.

it is sacred and symbolical, it is not meant for appetite satiation.
He also submitted that there is no fundamental or statutory right to
enforce a specific form or standard of prasadam. He would submit
that judicial review based on an individual’s claim of quality is not
permissible, and therefore, the High Court should not have interfered
in the matter.
18. Two questions emerge for our consideration – (i) whether the
writ petition at the behest of respondent no. 1 should have been
entertained by the High Court; and (ii) whether the appellant-Board
qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined under Section
3(1)(j) of the Act.
Re: Whether the writ petition at the behest of Respondent No.
1 should have been entertained by the High Court?
19. The principle that in matters of public tenders for procurement,
judicial review is restrained is well established4. In cases where a
party invoking writ jurisdiction has been a participant in the tender
process, courts should be slow and cautious in exercising the power
of judicial review. In a recent decision, UFLEX Ltd. v. Government
of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal Nos. 4862-63 of 2021, this Court
has held that constitutional courts should exercise caution while
interfering in contractual and tender matters, disguised as public
interest litigations. The following observations are important for the
purpose of this case:
“1. The enlarged role of the Government in economic
activity and its corresponding ability to give economic
“largesse” was the bedrock of creating what is commonly
called the “tender jurisdiction”. The objective was to have
greater transparency and the consequent right of an
aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, beyond the
issue of strict enforcement of contractual rights under the
civil jurisdiction. However, the ground reality today is that
almost no tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful
parties or parties not even participating in the tender seek

4 Tata Cellular v. Union of India, [1994] Supp. 2 SCR 122 : (1994) 6 SCC 651, Michigan Rubber v. State
of Karnataka, [2012] 8 SCR 128 : (2012) 8 SCC 216, Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited & Ors., [2019] 6 SCR 950 : (2019) 14 SCC 81.
372 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution. The public interest litigation (PIL)
jurisdiction is also invoked towards the same objective, an
aspect normally deterred by the Court because this causes
proxy litigation in purely contractual matters.
2. The judicial review of such contractual matters has
its own limitations. It is in this context of judicial review
of administrative actions that this Court has opined
that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides. The purpose is
to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully
and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound.
In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties
are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence.
To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have
to stay at a distance.
3. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tenderer or
contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in
a civil court and thus, “attempts by unsuccessful tenderers
with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business
rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self,
and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of
judicial review, should be resisted.”
20. We find merit in the argument of the appellant-Board that respondent
no. 1 could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, being
an interested party. The reliance placed by the appellant-Board on
the precedent of this Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra) is
apposite. In a similar context, this Court held:
“4. 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. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present
case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding
public interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has
now come to occupy an important field in the administration
of law should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “private
interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the latest
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 373

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.

trend “paise income litigation”. If not properly regulated
and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well.
There must be real and genuine public interest involved
in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight
errant or poke one’s nose into for a probe. It cannot also
be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further
his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal
grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed
to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to
the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide
and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public
interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental
rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not
for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by
this Court in Janata Dal case [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993
SCC (Cri) 36] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau
of Investigation [1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 : 1994 SCC (Cri)
873] . A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in
public interest must come not only with clean hands like
any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean
mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union
of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852] and
K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand [(1994) 6 SCC 620].
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to
be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice,
vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It
is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of
law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive
brand name of public interest litigation should not be used
for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed
at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and
not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As
indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body
of persons or a member of the public, who approaches
374 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain
or private motive or political motivation or other oblique
consideration. ...”
21. In the present case, respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, is an
interested party. It had supplied cardamom to the appellant-Board
for the year 2021-2022. It had also participated in the two tenders
released by the appellant-Board, which later came to be cancelled.
Although this information has not been concealed, it is quite evident
that the writ petitioner was interested in the outcome of the writ
petition. The second prayer in the writ petition, which has been
extracted before, is for cancellation of the purchase of cardamom
from respondent no. 2. This prayer makes it clear that the real
grievance is about the grant of contract in favour of respondent no.
2. The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition on
behalf of an interested person who sought to convert a judicial review
proceeding for enhancing personal gain.
22. This writ petition also challenged the manner in which the cardamom
was sourced. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant-
Board initially tried to purchase cardamom by issuing tenders and
calling for bids, not just once, but twice over. However, these tenders
were cancelled since none of the bidder’s supplied cardamom
of appropriate quality. It is in these compelling circumstances,
considering the impending festive season and the imminent need
to prepare a humungous quantity of Aravana Prasadam, that the
appellant-Board invoked the urgency clause in its regulations and
authorised the Chief Executive Officer of the Sabarimala Temple to
procure cardamom from local sources. Thus, it cannot be said that
the decision is arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. There is neither
arbitrariness nor malice in the decision of the appellant-Board as
all the prospective bidders were given a fair chance as the notice
to purchase cardamom was published on the notice board. The
cardamom samples submitted by the bidders were then tested in
a nearby lab, which was also established by the Commissioner of
Food Safety as per an order of the High Court. Thereafter, price
negotiations were conducted, and respondent no. 2 was given supply
orders after quoting the lowest rates. We are of the opinion that the
decision of the appellant-Board is legal, fair and transparent. For the
above reasons, we are of the view that the High Court committed
an error in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 375

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices & Ors.

23. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the High
Court should have dismissed the Writ Petition on the question of
maintainability itself. In this view of the matter, issue no. 2 relating
to applicability of the Act to the appellant Board does not arise for
consideration in this case.
24. After hearing the parties and at the time of reserving the judgment
on 03.11.2023, we passed the following order:-
“…
At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s)
would submit that the stock of Aravanam Prasadam, which
was to be distributed earlier, but prevented pursuant to
the interim and final orders of the High Court, is still lying
in the premises but the petitioner-Board is not intending
of using the same.
In that regard, we take note of the report filed on behalf of
the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI)
which would indicate that Aravanam Prasadam is fit for
human consumption.
However, as the petitioner-Board itself has taken a decision
that the Aravanam Prasadam will not be distributed, the
stock presently existing will have to be destroyed as
per the appropriate procedure as indicated by the State
Government.
Under these circumstances, we direct the State Government
to destroy/dispose of the existing stock of Aravanam
Prasadam in an appropriate manner by following the
necessary procedure. For this purpose, we also direct
the Travancore Devaswom Board to extend complete co-
operation and ensure that the stock is destroyed/disposed
as it is stated that the next season for opening of the temple
is due and fresh Aravanam Prasadam will have to be stored.
All necessary steps may be taken by the State Government
and the Travancore Devaswom Board as expeditiously
as possible.”
25. In conclusion, we allow the appeals and set aside the Impugned
Interim Order dated 27.03.2023 in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 and the impugned
376 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

final judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court in W.P. No. 41743 of 2022, and hold that there was no
illegality or arbitrariness in awarding the contract to respondent no. 2.
26. Pending application(s) shall be disposed of accordingly.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Appeals allowed.