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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.