Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. vs The Travancore Devaswom Board

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Writ petition is filed by the petitioner Federation seeking for the following reliefs :

"i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, calling for the records leading to the issue of the tender notification both of Exhibits P1 and P2 in relation to the supply of jaggery to the Sabarimala Sannidhanam and direct the respondent to delete the condition that "only manufacturers are allowed to participate " and entertain tender by the petitioner also;

ii) declare that Exhibits P1 and P2 as arbitrary in respect of the condition that "only manufacturers are allowed to participate"

in regard to jaggery and quash the same;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, permitting the petitioner to participate in the tender process with regard to jaggery;

(iv) pass such other orders as this Hon''ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and

(v) award costs of the proceedings to the petitioner."

We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Sri. Millu Dandapani and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board Sri. V. Krishna Menon.

By notification Ext. P1, the Travancore Devaswom Board has invited tender for supply of jaggery and other items. We are concerned only with the item ''jaggery'', wherein the condition fixed is that only manufacturers are allowed to participate. The learned Standing Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having a very good organization and it intends to participate in the tender and the condition in Ext. P1 will prevent them from submitting the tender. It is submitted that even though in the last year by Ext. P3 judgment, this Court rejected a similar writ petition on the ground of delay in approaching the court also, this year the petitioner has approached this Court earlier for challenging the objectionable condition itself.

Learned Standing counsel for the Board submitted that the said condition is added to ensure quality of jaggary for preparation of Aravana. Because of the previous adverse experience in the supply of jaggery, to avoid supply of less quality jaggery, they are insisting for supply of jaggery of very good quality and therefore only competent manufacturers are invited to participate in the tender. It is submitted that as far as fixation of such a qualification is concerned, there is no scope for interference by this Court.

Ext. P3 is a judgment inter-partes. In fact by Ext. P3 judgment this Court on the last occasion found that only a manufacturer is permitted to participate in tender. This Court also observed therein that condition No. 3 of the tender conditions will show that prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 may be initiated, if there is violation of the provisions of the Act apart from the Regulation. The petitioner not being a manufacturer, prima facie, the first respondent may not be able to proceed with against the petitioner, if subsequently any violations with regard to the provisions of the Act are found out.

Even though, the learned Standing counsel for the Federation highlighted various aspects including the one that the Federation would be able to supply good quality of jaggery from competent manufacturers and wanted us to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process, we are of the view that the fixation of a qualification as such in Ext. P1 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal warranting interference by this Court, especially in the light of the stand of the Travancore Devaswom Board that unless suitable conditions are provided in the manner now notified the interest of the Board will be effected. After considering arguments on both sides, we find no reason to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed.