LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, August 20, 2011

SOCIAL WELFARE MEASUREMENTS OF APEX COURT – twelve directions:- 6 (i) The aspect of sanctioning 14 lakhs AWCS and increase of norm of rupee one to rupees two per child per day would be considered by this Court after two weeks. (ii) The efforts shall be made that all SC/ST hamlets/habitations in the country have AWCS as early as possible. (iii) The contractors shall not be used for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and preferably ICDS funds shall be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups and Mahila Mandals for buying of grains and preparation of meals. (iv) All State Governments/Union Territories shall put on their website full data for the ICDS schemes including where AWCS are operational, the number of beneficiaries category-wise, the funds allocated and used and other related matters. 7 (v) All State Governments/Union Territories shall use the Pradhanmantri Gramodaya Yojna fund (PMGY) in addition to the state allocation and not as a substitute for State funding. (vi) As far as possible, the children under PMGY shall be provided with good food at the Centre itself. (vii) All the State Governments/Union Territories shall allocate funds for ICDS on the basis of norms of one rupee per child per day, 100 beneficiaries per AWC and 300 days feeding in a year, i.e., on the same basis on which the Centre make the allocation. (viii) BPL shall not be used as an eligibility criteria for ICDS. (ix) All sanctioned projects shall be operationalised and provided food as per these norms and wherever utensils have not been provided, the same shall be provided (Instance of Jharkhand State has been noticed in the Report where 8 utensils have not been provided). The vacancies for the operational ICDS shall be filled forthwith. (Instance of Uttar Pradesh where vacancies have not been filled up is quite alarming though in the affidavit it has been stated that a drive has been initiated to fill up the vacancies). (x) All the State Governments/Union Territories shall utilize the entire State and Central allocation under ICDS/PMGY and under no circumstances, the same shall be diverted and preferably also not returned to the Centre and, if returned, a detailed explanation for non-utilisation shall be filed in this Court. (xi) All State/Union Territories shall make earnest effort to cover the slums under ICDS. (xii) The Central Government and the States/Union Territories shall ensure that all amounts allocated are sanctioned in time so that there 9 is no disruption whatsoever in the feeding of children.


                                                                                1




                                                              REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.7104 OF 2011

            [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29363 of 2010]




      Shagun Mahila Udyogik

      Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit                       .. Appellant


      VERSUS


      State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                 ..Respondents




                                   J U D G M E N T


      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.


      1.     Leave granted.





      2.     The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final



             judgment and order of the High Court of judicature



             at         Bombay,         Nagpur         Bench         at         Nagpur



             dated 9th September, 2010, in Writ Petition No. 4210



             of   2010   vide   which   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High



             Court   dismissed   the   petition   of   the   appellant



             thereby   affirming   the   decision   of   awarding   the



             contract to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.


                                                              2





3.    We may notice here the essential facts, which would



      have   a   bearing   on   the   determination   of   the   issues



      raised in this appeal.





4.    The   appellant   is   a   society   registered   under   the



      Maharashtra   Co-operative   Societies   Act,   1960.   The



      appellant   has   several   years   of   experience   in



      supplying   hot   cooked   meal   (ready   to   eat   food)   for



      children   and   other   beneficiaries   of   Anganwadi



      Centres   (in   short   `AWCS')   in   the   State   of



      Maharashtra.





5.    In the year 1975, the Central Government floated a



      scheme   termed   as   "Integrated   Child   Development



      Scheme"   (in   short   `ICDS')   in   order   to   improve   the



      health and nutrition status of the children (between



      the age group   of 0-6 years); pregnant and lactating



      women,   by   providing   them   with   supplementary



      food.     Under   the   said   Scheme,   certain   kind   of


                                                                3



      specified food was proposed to be supplied through



      AWCS.          Accordingly,   around   fourteen   lakhs



      Anganwadi Centres were proposed to be set up.





6.    It   appears   that   the   lack   of   progress   made   in   the



      implementation   of   the   aforesaid   Scheme   prompted



      the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (in short `PUCL)



      to   move   this  Court   by   way  of  a  Writ   Petition  (Civil)



      No. 196 of 2001 under Article 32 of the Constitution



      of   India,   seeking   necessary   directions   for



      implementation of the Scheme. By a series of orders



      passed in the aforesaid writ proceedings, this Court



      issued   the   necessary   directions.   On   8th  May,   2002,



      this   Court   gave   detailed   directions   with   regard   to



      implementation   of   various   Schemes,   which   have



      been   floated   for   giving   relief   to   the   poor,



      impoverished   and   the   hungry.     At   the   same   time,



      this Court appointed Dr. N.C. Saxena and Shri S.R.



      Sankaran as Commissioners of the Court, inter-alia,



      for   the   purpose   of   looking   into   the   grievances   that


                                                                      4



      may   persist   after   the   grievance   resolution



      procedure,   laid   down   in   the   said   order   was



      exhausted.  Scope of the work of the Commissioners



      also   included   monitoring   of   the   implementation   of



      the   Court's   orders   as   well   as   monitoring   and



      reporting to this Court of the implementation by the



      respondents   of   various   welfare   measures   and



      schemes.





7.    Again on 29th October, 2002, this Court directed the



      respective         State         Governments         to         appoint



      Government   Officials   as   Assistants   to   the



      Commissioners.     The   Commissioners   submitted   a



      very detailed report to this Court, salient features of



      which   have   been   noticed   by   the   order   dated   7th



      April, 2004.   This Court appreciated the work done



      by   the   Commissioners.     It   was   also   noticed   that



      although   fourteen   lakhs   AWCS   were   directed   to   be



      established,   only   six   lakhs   centres   had   been



      sanctioned.       It   was   also   noticed   that   many   of   the


                                                                 5



      sanctioned   centres   were   not   operational.   In   some



      States,   the   problem   seemed  to   be   more   acute   than



      the others.  Upon consideration of the entire matter,



      directions were issued for the sanction of remaining



      AWCS and for increase of norm for the food value to



      be supplied to these beneficiaries from rupee one to



      rupee two per day.   This Court also noticed that on



      an   average,   forty   two   paisa   as   against   the   norm   of



      rupee   one   was   being   allocated   per   beneficiary   per



      day   by   the   State   of   Jharkhand.     The   position   in



      Bihar   and   Uttar   Pradesh   was   also   no   better.



      Therefore,   necessary   directions   were   issued   to   the



      State   Governments   to   make   operational   all



      sanctioned AWCS by 30th November, 2004.





8.    Taking   into   consideration   all   the   facts   and



      circumstances   placed   on   record   by   the   two   Court



      Commissioners   and   through   various   affidavits   filed



      by the respondents, this Court issued the following



      twelve directions:-


                                                              6



(i)      The aspect of sanctioning 14 lakhs AWCS and



         increase   of   norm   of   rupee   one   to   rupees   two



         per child per day would be considered by this



         Court after two weeks.



(ii)     The   efforts   shall   be   made   that   all   SC/ST



         hamlets/habitations   in   the   country   have



         AWCS as early as possible.



(iii)    The contractors shall not be used for supply of



         nutrition   in   Anganwadis   and   preferably   ICDS



         funds   shall   be   spent   by   making   use   of   village



         communities,   self-help   groups   and   Mahila



         Mandals   for   buying   of   grains   and   preparation



         of meals.



(iv)     All   State   Governments/Union   Territories   shall



         put   on   their   website   full   data   for   the   ICDS



         schemes           including         where         AWCS         are



         operational,   the   number   of   beneficiaries



         category-wise,   the   funds   allocated   and   used



         and other related matters.


                                                              7



(v)      All   State   Governments/Union   Territories   shall



         use the Pradhanmantri Gramodaya Yojna fund



         (PMGY)  in addition  to the  state  allocation and



         not as a substitute for State funding.



(vi)     As   far   as   possible,   the   children   under   PMGY



         shall be provided with good food at the Centre



         itself.



(vii)    All   the   State   Governments/Union   Territories



         shall   allocate   funds   for   ICDS   on   the   basis   of



         norms   of   one   rupee   per   child   per   day,



         100   beneficiaries   per   AWC   and   300   days



         feeding   in   a   year,   i.e.,   on   the   same   basis   on



         which the Centre make the allocation.



(viii) BPL shall  not be used  as an eligibility criteria



         for ICDS.



(ix)     All sanctioned projects shall be operationalised



         and   provided   food   as   per   these   norms   and



         wherever utensils have not been provided, the



         same shall be provided (Instance of Jharkhand



         State   has   been   noticed   in   the   Report   where


                                                             8



         utensils   have   not   been   provided).   The



         vacancies   for   the   operational   ICDS   shall   be



         filled   forthwith.   (Instance   of   Uttar   Pradesh



         where   vacancies   have   not   been   filled   up   is



         quite   alarming   though   in   the   affidavit   it   has



         been   stated   that   a   drive   has   been   initiated   to



         fill up the vacancies).



(x)      All   the   State   Governments/Union   Territories



         shall   utilize   the   entire   State   and   Central



         allocation   under   ICDS/PMGY   and   under   no



         circumstances, the same shall be diverted and



         preferably also not returned to the Centre and,



         if   returned,   a   detailed   explanation   for



         non-utilisation shall be filed in this Court.



(xi)     All State/Union Territories shall make earnest



         effort to cover the slums under ICDS.



(xii)    The Central Government and the States/Union



         Territories   shall   ensure   that   all   amounts



         allocated   are   sanctioned   in   time   so   that   there


                                                                           9



             is   no   disruption   whatsoever   in   the   feeding   of



             children.          





9.    Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   directions,   respondent



      Nos.   1   and   2   passed   a   resolution   on   28th  October,



      2005.     The   resolution   provided   for   a   detailed



      procedure of making available "Ready to Eat" (`RTE')



      food   targeted   to   beneficiaries   through   Anganwadis.



      The   food   was   to   be   supplied   by   Mahila   Mandal,



      Mahila   Sanstha,   Women   Self   Helping   Saving



      Groups,   Sale   Assistant   Saving   Group   for



      Anganwadis,   registered   under   the   provisions   of



      either           (i)   Public   Trust   Act,   1950,   (ii)     Societies



      Registration           Act,         1860,         (iii)         Maharashtra



      Cooperative   Societies   Act,   and       (iv)   Company



      registered   under   the   Companies   Act,   1956.     The



      resolution further required that every member of the



      Group should be a woman.


                                                             10



10.    In   the   meantime,   this   Court   had   passed  a  number



       of   other   orders   providing   for   Supplementary



       Nutrition   to   the   beneficiaries,   particular   attention



       was directed to be paid to the following:-



       (i)      Children   falling   within   the   age   group



                of 6 months to 3 years,



       (ii)     Pregnant and lactating women and



       (iii)    Severely   underweight   children   within   the



                age group of 6 months to 3 years.





11.    The   Central   Government   found   that   the   original



       ICDS   scheme   was   insufficient   to   cater   to   the



       nutritional   demands   of   the   categories   of   children



       and   women   noticed   above.                The   Central



       Government,   therefore,   conducted   further   surveys



       through   experts   which   recommended   that   the   gap



       in   the   calories   norms   between   the   Recommended



       Dietary   Allowance   (in   short   `RDA')   and   the   Actual



       Dietary Intake (in short `ADI') be filled.     Therefore,



       the   Central   Government,   in   consultation   with   its


                                                                 11



       experts, published a revised nutritional and feeding



       norm   for   supplementary   nutrition   in   ICDS   Scheme



       on 24th February, 2009.  The revised norms required



       that   the   supplementary   food   may   be   fortified   with



       essential micro nutrients with 50% of RDA level per



       beneficiary per day.





12.    These   revised   norms   were   filed   before   this   Court



       alongwith an affidavit dated 2nd  March, 2009 by the



       Central Government highlighting the various factors



       including   the   recommendations   received   from   the



       Task Force constituted by the Central Government.



       Upon   consideration   of   the   affidavit   of   the   Central



       Government,   this   Court   passed   a   further   order   on



       22nd  April,   2009.     In   Paragraph   5   and   6,   it   was



       observed as follows:-



          "5.    The   Revised   Nutritional   and   Feeding

          Norms   for   SNP   in   ICDS   Scheme   circulated

          vide   letter   no.5-9/2005/ND/Tech.(Vol.   I)

          dated 24.02.2009 states that children in the

          age   group   of   6   months   to   3   years   must   be

          entitled to food supplement of 500 calorie of

          energy   and   12-15   gm.   of   protein   per   child

          per   day   in   the   form   of   take   home   ration


                                                                       12



          (THR).   For   the   age   group   of  3-6  years,   food

          supplement   of   500   calories   of   energy   and

          12-15 gm of protein per child must be made

          available   at   the   Anganwadi   Centers   in   the

          form   of   a   hot   cooked   meal   and   a   morning

          snack   for   severely   underweight   children   in

          the   age   group   of   6   months   to   6   years,   an

          additional   300   calories   of   energy   and   8-10

          gm   of   protein   would   be   given   as   THR.   For

          pregnant   and   lactating   mothers,   a   food

          supplement   of   600   calories   of   energy   and

          18-20 gm of protein per beneficiary per day

          would be provided as THR.


          6.            The letter dated 24.02.2009 No.5-

          9/2005/NO/Tech (Vol. II) has been annexed

          to   the   affidavit   dated   2nd  March,   2009   filed

          by   the   Union   of   India.   It   is   directed   that

          norms indicated in the said letter addressed

          to   all   the   State   Government   sand   Union

          Territories have to be implemented forthwith

          and   the   respective   States/UTS   would   make

          requisite financial allocation  and undertake

          necessary arrangements to comply with the

          stipulation contained in the said letter."    




13.    This   Court   noticed   the   statement   made   by   the



       learned         Additional         Solicitor         General          that



       Supplementary Nutrition Food (in short `SNF') in the



       form  of Take  Home  Ration  (in short  `THR')   shall be



       provided   to   all   children   in   the   age   group   of   6



       months   to   3   years   and   additional   300   calories   to



       severely underweight children in the age group of 3


                                                                  13



     to   6  years,   pregnant   women   and   lactating   mothers



     as   per   norms   laid   down   in   the   letter   dated   24th



     February,   2009.     Accordingly,   all   Union   Territories



     and   State   Governments   were   directed   to   ensure



     compliance   with   the   aforementioned   stipulations



     without   fail.     A   further   direction   was   issued   to   all



     the   States   and   Union   Territories   to   provide



     supplementary   nutrition   in   the   form   of   a   morning



     snack and a hot cooked meal to the children in the



     age   group   of   3   to   6   years,   in   accordance   with   the



     guidelines   contained   in   the   letter   dated   24th



     February, 2009 preferably  by 31st  December, 2009.



     Provision   was   also   made   for   continuance   of   the



     Nutritional   Programme   for   Adolescent   Girls   and



     Kishori   Shakti   Yojana   till   such   time   as   a



     comprehensive             universal         scheme         for         the



     empowerment   of   adolescent   girls   called   the   Rajiv



     Gandhi Scheme for the Empowerment of Adolescent



     Girls is implemented.






                                                                  14



14.    The   Central   Government,   through   the   Ministry   of



       Women   and   Child   Development   and   Food   and



       Nutrition Board Office vide its letter dated 28th July,



       2009, circulated the Recipe to the State Government



       (respondent   No.   1)   as   per   new   norms   of   ICDS   for



       preparation   of   the   food.     It   was   provided   that   the



       feeding norms ought to have two components in it,



       to   be   provided   as   supplementary   nutrition   to   the



       beneficiaries   at   Anganwadis   namely:-   Hot   Cooked



       Meal   (HCM)   and   Take   Home   Ration   (THR).



       Directions   were   issued   that   HCM   and   THR   should



       be   given  in  the  form   of "energy  dense   food  / micro



       nutrient   fortified   food"   and   should   conform   to   the



       standards   laid   by   the   Prevention   of   Food



       Adulteration   Act,   Integrated   Food   Law,   Infant   and



       Young Child Practices.   The micro nutrient fortified



       food   was   defined   to   be   the   food   in   which   essential



       mineral   and   vitamins   are   added   separately   to



       ensure that minimum dietary requirements are met.



       It   was   emphasised   that   to   attain   the   required


                                                               15



       protein content in the food proposed to be supplied,



       the only source was Soyabean.   The food was to be



       processed   by   using   Extrusion   Technology   to   draw



       maximum   results   by   use   of   Soyabean.     The



       guidelines in the aforesaid letter further emphasised



       that   since   the   revised   guidelines   laid   major   stress



       on   micro   nutrient   fortification   of   the   THR,   it



       required   "expert   technical   supervision"   and   that   it



       can   be   achieved   by   using   accurate   machines   with



       precision in measuring the quantity in milligrams.





15.      It was in response to the directions issued by this



       Court   from   time   to   time   and   to   implement   the



       revised   norms   set   by   the   Central   Government   that



       respondent No. 1, Maharashtra Government passed



       a resolution           on 24th  August, 2009.   Under  this



       resolution, the Government not only prescribed the



       procedure   for   implementing   the   revised   norms   but



       also   revised   the   rates   in   all   the   categories   of



       beneficiaries.


                                                                     16





16.    Based   on   the   above,   an   Expression   of   Interest



       (in short `EOI')  was taken out by respondent No. 2,



       the         Commissioner,         i.e.,         Integrated         Child



       Development Services Scheme, Maharashtra, on 7th



       December, 2009 for supply of fortified blended food



       manufactured   through   process   of   extrusion.     In



       response   to   the   aforesaid   EOI,   the   State



       Government received 351 applications            for 34



       districts across the State of Maharashtra.





17.      The   aforesaid   EOI   was   challenged   by   one   Smt.



       Nanda   Chandrabhan   Thakur   in   Writ   Petition   No.



       2588   of   2009   before   a   Division   Bench   of   the



       Bombay   High   Court.     Primary   challenge   of   that



       petitioner was to condition No.6 which required the



       applicant to possess a turn over of     Rs. 1 crore for



       the   last   three   consecutive   financial   years.



       Condition No. 6 of the EOI provided as under:-



       "6.   The   eligible   Mahila   Mandal,   Mahila

       Sanstha,   self   helping   saving   group,   should


                                                                 17



       attach  a certificate  about producing of the Food

       or equivalent like Fortified Blended Premix and

       supplying   the   same   upto   the   Anganwadi   in

       ICDS   for  the   last   3   consecutive   financial   years

       having a turn  over of Rs. 1.00 crores. The said

       certificate   should   be   certified   by   the   Chartered

       Accountant.   (Year   2006-2007,   2007-2008,

       2008-2009)."




18.    Upon   consideration   of   the   matter,   the   Division



       Bench observed that plain language of the condition



       indicates that only Mahila Mandal, Mahila Sanstha



       and Self helping Saving Group can participate in the



       tender   process,   provided   they   qualify   other



       requirements  in  Clause   6.     It   was   further   observed



       that one of the requirements of this clause was that



       the   tenderer   should   attach   a   certificate   about



       producing   the   specified   food   for   three   consecutive



       financial   years   (2006-2007,   2007-2008   and   2008-



       2009)   having   a   turnover   of   atleast   one   crore.   The



       said   certificate   should   be   certified   by   a   Chartered



       Accountant.


                                                                 18



19.    The   writ   petition   was   dismissed   with   the



       observations   that   since   the   petitioners   were   not



       espousing   the   case   of   Mahila   Mandal   or   Mahila



       Sanstha or Self helping Saving Group, they were not



       eligible as per the tender document at all.  Secondly,



       even if the petitioners were held to be eligible, they



       did not have a turn over of Rs. 1 crore as required



       under Clause 6.  The petitioners had also sought to



       argue   that   the   condition   of   Rs.   1   crore   would



       deprive   small   time   traders   and   business   persons



       from   participating   in   the   tender   process.     This



       submission was also negated by the Division Bench



       with   the   observation   that   the   criteria   fixed   by   the



       respondent   is   a   policy   matter   and   is   keeping   in



       mind all other factors to further the implementation



       of   child   development   service   scheme.     The   clause



       was found to be not arbitrary in any manner.





20.    It appears that the EOI had also given rise to certain



       agitations   by   some   of   the   Mahila   Bachat   Gats.


                                                            19



       During   the   pendency   of   these   complaints,   the



       Government   decided   not   to   proceed   further   and



       stayed the process under  the EOI on 16th  January,



       2010.     A   Committee   was   constituted   on   19th



       January,   2010   to   go   into   the   complaints.     Upon



       examination   of   the   entire   material,   the   Committee



       concluded   that   the   Extrusion   Technology   was



       necessary to produce the food as required under the



       directions   of   the   Central   Government.     On   5th



       February,   2010,   the   Committee,   therefore,



       recommended   that   the   stay   granted   by   the   State



       Government   may   be   vacated.     The   decision   was



       communicated   by   respondent   No.   1   to   respondent



       No. 2 through letter dated 22nd February, 2010.  The



       tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected.





21.    This led to the appellant herein filing a Writ Petition



       No.   1311   of   2010,   seeking   a   direction   that   the



       appellant be also considered in respect of supply of



       extruded fortified blended food / energy food under


                                                                 20



       ICDS Scheme.   However, the aforesaid writ petition



       was   withdrawn               on   17th  February,   2010   with



       liberty to approach the Government.





22.     It is the claim of the appellant that the writ petition



       was   withdrawn   as   respondent   No.   1   had   itself



       stayed   the   decision   of   respondent   No.   2   to   award



       the contract and was reviewing the condition Nos. 6,



       7 and 8.  Not knowing that the stay order dated 16th



       July, 2010 had been recommended to be vacated on



       5th     February,   2010,   the   appellant   made   a



       representation   to   respondent           Nos.   1   and   2   for



       consideration   to   supply   the   food   under   the   ICDS



       Scheme.   As noticed earlier, in view of the vacation



       of   the   stay   on   22nd  February,   2010,   condition   Nos.



       6, 7 and 8 remained intact.   We may further notice



       here   that   in   the   order   dated   22nd  February,   2010,



       respondent No. 1 had decided as under:-


                                                                       21



       (i)     That   5%   of   the   tender   work   be   reserved   for



               Mahila Mandal / Mahila Bachat Gat etc., who



               do not have the Extrusion Technology.



       (ii)    For   this   5%   work   so   reserved,   the   Extrusion



               Technology is not required.





23.    However, on 23rd February, 2010, the decision taken



       in   the   letter   dated   22nd  February,   2010,   was



       withdrawn.     It   was,   however,   further   provided   that



       "in   future,   if   some   Mahila   Bachat   Gat   /   Mahila



       Sanstha   /   Mahila   Mandal   made   production



       machinery,   set   up   unit   and   shown   their   ability   of



       making products, then the Commissioner, Ekatmik



       Bal Vikas Seva Yojana, Navi Mumbai will give them



       an   opportunity   and   will   purchase   THR   production



       made by them."





24.    Thereafter,          the         appellant         submitted          three



       representations on  26th  February,  2010, 2nd  March,



       2010   and   4th  March,   2010   requesting   respondent


                                                                22



       Nos. 1 and 2 to consider them for supply of the food



       under ICDS Scheme.   It is the case of the appellant



       that  without considering  these  representations,  the



       respondent        Nos. 1 and 2 signed an agreement,



       awarding the contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for



       a period of one year, with a clause for extension  of



       two   years.        Ultimately,   in   spite   of   further



       representations of the appellant, the work order was



       awarded   to   respondent   Nos.   4   to   6   to   support   the



       supply of food material forthwith in accordance with



       the agreement signed on 28th April, 2010.





25.    Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2



       in awarding the contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6,



       the appellant filed a writ Petition No. 4210 of 2010



       on   25th  August,   2010.     The   High   Court   initially



       passed   an   order   on   30th  August,   2010   granting



       interim   relief.     Respondent   Nos.   1   and   2   filed   an



       application for vacation of stay, the appellant in the



       reply   to   the   aforesaid   application   stated   that   the


                                                                   23



       respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have not fulfilled one of the



       conditions   in   the   original   application   form   namely



       that   of   applicants   should   submit   the   copies   of   the



       documents   signed   by   the   notary,   which   included



       VAT   Clearance   Certificate   as   on   31st  March,   2009.



       It   was   also   stated   that   the   respondent   Nos.   4   to   6



       had   wrongly   stated   that   no   tax   was   due   and



       payable.     Upon   consideration   of   the   entire   matter,



       the   High   Court   dismissed   the   writ   petition   filed   by



       the   appellant.     Hence   the   present   Special   Leave



       Petition.





26.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at



       length.   Although, very elaborate submissions have



       been made by the learned counsel for the parties, it



       would   be   appropriate   to   summarize   the



       submissions.





27.    Mr.   Mukul   Rohtagi,   learned   senior   counsel,



       appearing   for   the   appellant,   submitted   that   the


                                                            24



condition   Nos.   6,   7,   8   and   9   in   the   EOI   are



arbitrary.   He further submits that the Government



order permitted the grant of contract for a period of



one year.  However, the agreement entered into with



respondent Nos. 4 to 6 provides that the agreement



will   remain   valid   for   one   year   and   extendable   for



next   24   months   from   the   date   of   allotment   of   the



first dispatch advice  by  the  Commissioner  with the



same   terms   and   conditions.     Learned   counsel



submitted   that   since   the   period   of   one   year   has



expired,   it   would   be   appropriate   to   invite   fresh



tenders.     Learned   counsel   invited   our   attention   to



the   Government   Resolution   dated   24th  August,



2009,   which   clearly   provided   that   as   per   existing



practice,   the   period   of   supplying   supplementary



nutrition   food,                             Mahila   Mandal,   Women



Institutions,   Self   Assistance   Saving   Group   will   be



for   the   period   of   one   year   only.           Mr.   Rohtagi



further   invited   our   attention   to   the   Minutes   of   the



meeting   held   on   5th  February,   2010,   in   view   of   the


                                                               25



Government   Circular   dated   19th  January,   2010



regarding   selection   of   tenders.     In   Paragraph   7   of



the Minutes, it is mentioned that "the agreement for



the   supply   of   THR   will   be   for   one   year   and   the



orders   for   supply   will   be   given   for   one   year   only."



On   the   basis   of   the   above,   it   is   submitted   that



permitting   the   extension   of   the   contract   for   three



years   is   contrary   to   the   decisions   taken   by   the



Competent Authority.   Hence, the contract is liable



to   be   declared   illegal.     Learned   senior   counsel,



thereafter,   submitted   that   the   entire   selection



process   was   suspect.     Having   stayed   the   selection



process,   it   was  vacated  only  to   show   undue   favour



to respondent Nos. 4 to 6.  According to the learned



senior   counsel,   it   would   have   been   much   more



transparent   if   the   tender   process   was   conducted



afresh.  Mr. Rohtagi then submitted that even if the



appellant   is   not   successful   on   the   one   year   issue,



respondent                   Nos.   4   to   6   still   could   not   be



selected   as   they   are   not   qualified.     Learned   senior


                                                          26



counsel   made   a   reference   to   Clause   17   of   the   EOI,



which reads as under:-



    "All   applicants   should   submit   the   copies   of   the



     following documents signed by the Notary.



    Certificate   of   District   Industry   Centre,   VAT



     Registration/CST Registration certificate.



    Validity   Certificate   as   per   Food   Adulteration



     Prohibition Act, 1954.



    PAN Card.



    ISO   9001   :   2000   Certificate,   H.A.C.C.P.



     Certificate   for   preparing   extruded   fortified



     blended/energy food.



    Income tax returns



    VAT clearance certificate (as on 31.3.2009)



    Evidence/proof   to   the   effect   that   production



     centre   having   permanent   structure   which   is



     owned   public   acquired   on   agreement   is   in   the



     possession of the Institution."


                                                                   27



28.        Mr.   Rohtagi   submits   that   the   VAT   Clearance



       Certificate   given   by   respondent   Nos.   4,   5   and   6



       depict the details of tax dues from 1st April, 2006 to



       31st  March,   2009   as   "Nil".     The   statement   made   is



       that amount of tax dues is given as per return.  The



       aforesaid   declaration,   according   to   the   learned



       senior   counsel   is   not   correct.     It   is   submitted   that



       the   information   given   by   the   Tax   Department   in



       response to an enquiry made by the appellant under



       the   Right   to   Information   shows   that   respondent



       Nos.   4,   5  and   6  owe   lakhs  of   rupees.     It  is   further



       submitted   by   Mr.   Rohtagi   that   not   only   the



       statements made by respondent No. 4 are incorrect



       but   there   is   concealment   of   the   fact   that   the



       aforesaid   respondents   were  black   listed  by   the   Tax



       Department.     Mr.   Rohtagi   submits   that   cumulative



       effect   of   all   the   aforesaid   facts   would   clearly   show



       that   the   respondent   Nos.   4   to   6   have   been   shown



       undue favour by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.  Learned



       senior   counsel   buttressed   this   submission   on   the


                                                                   28



       ground   that   conditions   are   clearly   tailor-made   for



       respondent   Nos.   4   to   6,   to   the   exclusion   of



       everybody else.





29.    In   response   to   these   submissions,   Mr.   C.U.   Singh,



       learned   senior   counsel,   appearing   for   respondent



       Nos.   1   and   2   submitted   that   there   is   no   condition



       limiting   the   contract   to   one   year.     In   fact,   it   has



       always   been   one   year   extendable   by   two   years.



       Learned   senior   counsel   drew   our   attention   to   the



       events   leading   to   the   passing   of   the   order   by   this



       Court   on   22nd  April,   2009.     Mr.   Singh   has   pointed



       out that the appellant admittedly does not fulfill any



       of the conditions, i.e., 6, 7, 8 and 9.   The appellant



       does not have the turn over of over Rs. 1 crore each



       year   for   the   last   continuous   three   financial   years.



       This   condition   has   already   been   upheld   by   the



       Bombay   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition   No.   2588   of



       2009.     The   appellant   also   does   not  fulfill   condition



       No. 9 as admittedly, it does  not have a functioning


                                                         29



unit   for   preparation   of   fortified   blended   nourishing



food   (premix)   prepared   by   extruded   system.



Learned  senior  counsel  pointed  out  that  initially  in



Writ   Petition   No.   1311   of   2010,   the   appellant   had



challenged   condition   Nos.   6,   8,   13   and   14   of   the



EOI.     This   writ   petition   was   withdrawn   on   17th



February,   2010   with   liberty   to   represent   to   the



Government.     The   present   writ   petition   was   filed



on 24th  August, 2010 before the Nagpur bench.   In



this writ petition, none of the tender conditions were



challenged.     The   appellant   merely   prayed   for   a



declaration   that   condition   No.   6   be   deemed   to   be



waived.     Learned   senior   counsel   submits   that   the



points   urged   by   Mr.   Rohtagi   in   this   Court   were



never   argued   before   the   High   Court.     Therefore,



according   to   the   learned   senior   counsel,   the



submissions of the appellant need to be shut out at



the   threshold.     It   is   further   submitted   that   the



representations   submitted   by   the   appellant   and



others   were   duly   considered.     The   appellant   was


                                                          30



duly heard.   The contract was given initially for one



year,   which   was   extendable   for   three   years,   on



satisfactory   performance   in   the   twelve   months.



Therefore, the agreement clearly stipulated that the



work  order   shall   be  for   one   year,   extendable   by   24



months.     According   to   the   learned   senior   counsel,



there is no justification for saying that the contract



was to be limited only to one year.   Learned senior



counsel   further   submitted   that   under   any



circumstances, appellant by its own showing has no



locus   standi   to   challenge   the   grant   of   contract   to



respondent Nos. 4 to 6.  Mr. Singh points out to the



submission   made   by   the   appellant   in   I.A.   No.   1   of



2010   seeking   permission   for   filing   additional



documents.   In Paragraph 1, the appellant submits



that   it   had   submitted   the   application   for   supply   of



ICDS food for all 34 districts of Maharashtra.   It is



further submitted that all documents as required by



the   Notice   dated   7th  December,   2010   were   also



submitted.   The appellant further states that it had


                                                                                 31



                       complied   with   all   conditions   mentioned   in   the



                       application,   excepting   conditions   6,   7   and   8   of   the



                       application form. Mr. Singh submits that in the face



                       of this admission, the appellant does not deserve to



                       be heard at all.   He has relied on two judgments of



                       this   Court   in   the   case   of  Glodyne   Technoserve


                       Limited      Vs.    State
                                                      of   Madhya   Pradesh   &   Ors.1
                                                                                           


                       and Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr. Vs.  Union


                       of
                           India & Ors.2
                                            , in support of the submissions that


                       the   tender   conditions   have   to   be   strictly   complied



                       with by all the candidates.  





                30.    Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, appearing



                       for respondent Nos. 4 to 6, submitted that it was on



                       the   representations   made   by   various   associations



                       and   the   appellant   that   the   tender   process   was



                       stayed.     Upon   consideration   of   the   entire   material,



                       the two letters    dated 22nd February, 2010 and 23rd



                       February,   2010   were   issued.     Learned   senior


1 (2011)  5 SCC 103


2 (2011)  5 SCC 430


                                                                         32



counsel   further   submitted   that   although   in   the



letter dated 22nd  February, 2010, it was stated that



the   period   of   the   tender   would   be   one   year,   the



same was withdrawn the next date.   Thereafter, the



respondent   Government   reverted   back   to   the   EOI.



It is further  submitted  that respondent  Nos. 4  to 6



had already been supplying hot meals for a number



of   years.     The   condition   with   regard   to   supply   of



THR   was   added   pursuant   to   the   orders   passed   by



this   Court,   as   noticed   earlier.     In   any   event,   it   is



submitted   by   the   learned   senior   counsel   that   the



condition of one year relates only to hot food, it has



no connection to the supply of THR. The respondent



Nos.   4   to   6   are   supplying   only   THR.     It   is   further



submitted that the Sales Tax objection raised by the



appellant          is         wholly         without         any          basis.



On 31st  March, 2009, there was no Sales Tax dues.



This is evident from the assessment made in favour



of  the   respondents,   which   was   much  later   in   point



of time.           As on 31st  March, 2009, the statement


                                                           33



made   by   the   respondents   was   in   accordance   with



the   return   filed.     Learned   senior   counsel   also



submitted   that   these   arguments   were   not   raised



before   the   High   Court.     On   the   question   of   black



listing, it is submitted that the recommendation for



black   listing   was   based   on   an   incident   in   the   year



2004.     This   was   subsequently   explained   and   there



was no black listing.  Mr. Patwalia also emphasised



that the appellant is even otherwise ineligible.   It is



not in possession of a unit.   A reference is made in



this connection to the Lease Agreement executed by



the   appellant   on   24th  December,   2009.     In   this



agreement,   the   appellant   would   be   permitted   to



lease   out   an   existing   manufacturing   facility.



Therefore,                on 7th December, 2009, relevant



for the purpose of EOI, the appellant did not have a



manufacturing   unit.     Again   referring   to   the   Joint



Venture   Agreement,   entered   into   by   the   appellant



with a third party, it is pointed out that it is without



any definite terms and conditions, no consideration


                                                                 34



       was   so   ever   provided   for   the   Joint   Venture



       Agreement.     Mr.   Patwalia   further   submits   that   the



       appellant   is   trying   to   mislead   the   Court   by   relying



       on   an   Analysis   Certificate   dated   25th  December,



       2009,   which   shows   that   the   appellant   had



       manufactured   fortified   blended   sukhadi   premix   on



       12th  December,   2009.     Since   the   appellant   did   not



       have a manufacturing unit, the certificate is clearly



       procured   for   the   purposes   of   this   case.     Learned



       senior   counsel,   therefore,   submits   that   the   High



       Court rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the



       appellant   herein.     In   reply   to   the   submissions,



       Mr.   Rohtagi   submitted   that   the   appellant   is



       concerned   only   with   transparency   which   must   be



       observed   in   any   tender   process.     The   appellant   is



       only   desirous   of   getting   an   opportunity   to



       participate in the tender process.





31.    We   have   considered   the   submissions   made   by   the



       learned   counsel   for   the   parties.     We   are   of   the


                                                                35



considered   opinion   that   the   writ   petition   has   been



rightly   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   after



examination   of   the   entire   issue.     The   High   Court



concluded   that   the   appellant   failed   to   satisfy   the



eligibility   criteria   as   contained   in   Clause   6,   as



noticed   earlier.     The   aforesaid   clause   requires   that



the   tenderer   should   have   produced   the   specified



food   for   the   last   three   consecutive   years   and



supplied   the   same   to   Anganwadi's   in   ICDS.   Since



the   appellant   did   not   possess   a   suitable



manufacturing   unit,   the   appellant   would   be



rendered   ineligible   on   this   score   alone.   As   pointed



out   by   Mr.   C.U.   Singh,   the   appellant   admitted   in



terms   in   its   pleadings   in   I.A.   No.   1   of   2010   that   it



does   not   satisfy   conditions   6,   7   and   8.     We   could



have,   therefore,   dismissed   the   appeal   solely   on   the



ground   that   the   appellant   had   made   a   voluntary



admission   by   which   it   was   bound.     However,



keeping   in   view   the   importance   of   the   issues



involved, i.e., the provision of supplementary diet to


                                                                  36



       a segment of the Indian population, which is either



       severely undernourished or in need of extra calories,



       we   have   chosen   to   examine   the   entire   matter   to



       ensure that the Scheme is being implemented in its



       letter and spirit by all the participating agencies.





32.    In our view, the High Court also correctly observed



       that   the   validity   of   the   eligibility   criteria   contained



       in Clause 6 of the tender dated 7th  December, 2009



       has   already   been   upheld   by   the   Division   Bench



       whilst   dismissing   the   Writ   Petition   No.   2588   of



       2009.     The   High   Court   also   correctly   negated   the



       submissions   of   the   appellant   that   in   spite   of   not



       having  a  unit of its own, the appellant  ought to  be



       declared eligible.  The High Court also found that in



       the facts and circumstances of the case, it was only



       respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who were suitable for grant



       of contract.


                                                                       37



33.    We   are   also   unable   to   accept   the   submission   of



       Mr.   Rohtagi   that   the   original   Government   decision



       had   limited   the   period   of   contract   to   one   year.     In



       fact, as demonstrated by the learned senior counsel



       for   the   respondents,   the   Government   decision   as



       well   as   tender   condition   clearly   stipulated   that   the



       contract   would   be   initially   for   one   year.     Upon



       completion   of   one   year,   the   work   of   the   successful



       candidate would be reassessed. In case, it is found



       that   the   performance   has   been   satisfactory,   the



       tender   shall   be   extended   for   a   period   of   two   more



       years.





34.    We are also of the considered opinion that the food,



       which is to be supplied to the recipients as a part of



       the   supplementary   nutrition   programme   has   to   be



       prepared   in   the   manner   prescribed   by   the



       Government   for   safety   and   nutrient   composition   of



       the   food.     It   can   not   be   left   to   uncertainties   of   the



       machinery available with individual manufacturers.


                                                                 38



       The successful supplier is duty bound to necessarily



       comply   with   all  the   specifications   laid  down  by   the



       Government in its norms.   Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr.



       Patwalia, in our opinion, by referring to the various



       documents,   have   clearly   demonstrated   that   the



       appellant is not eligible at all to be even considered



       in the tender process.   It has also been pointed out



       that   all   the   objections   raised   by   the   appellant   and



       other      Mahila Mandal / Mahila Sanstha / Mahila



       Bachat   Gat   etc.   etc.     were   duly   considered   by   the



       Government.   This is evident from the letters dated



       22nd February, 2010 and           23rd February, 2010.





35.    We   are   also   not   impressed   by   the   submission   of



       Mr. Rohtagi that the condition of having Rs. 1 crore



       over   the   three   previous   consecutive   years,   is   either



       arbitrary   or   whimsical.     Mr.   C.U.   Singh   by   making



       detailed reference to the counter affidavit has shown



       that   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   there   are   34



       districts having an annual value in terms of at-least


                                                                   39



       Rs. 1.7 crores per district.   Therefore, the condition



       of asking for minimum Rs. 1 crore turn over for the



       last three years can not be said to be arbitrary.   In



       fact, the condition would be of utmost importance.





36.    We   also   find   substance   in   the   submission   of



       Mr.   C.U.   Singh   and   Mr.   Patwalia   that   EOI   had



       deliberately   stressed   on   the   need   of   precise



       measurements for the preparation of the food.   The



       supplier is required to provide a fine mix of all kinds



       of   ingredients   including   the   revised   intake   of



       proteins   and   calories   to   the   precise   level.     In   fact,



       the level of precision is earmarked for each kind of



       food.     The   concept   behind   the   same   can   not   be



       permitted to be demonized by referring to it as food



       prepared   by   "automated   machines".   The   procedure



       adopted   is   necessary   to   ensure   that   there   is   "zero



       infection" in the food which is going to be consumed



       by   infants   and   the   children   who   are   already   under



       nourished.     It   cannot   be   over   emphasised   that,


                                                                 40



       since   the   beneficiaries   of   the   Dense   Energy   Food



       and   Fortified   Blended  Mixture   are   infants   from   the



       age group of 6 months to 3 years and pregnant and



       lactating   mothers,   it   was   all   the   more   desirable   to



       have fully automated plants. Such procedure avoids



       the   use   of   human   hands   in   processes   like   -



       handling, cleaning, grinding, extrusion, mixing etc.,



       all of which are done automatically.





37.    We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid



       considerations   can  not  be  said   to  be   extraneous  to



       the purpose for which EOI was floated.





38.    Taking   into   consideration,   all   the   facts   and



       circumstances of the case, we find the appeal to be



       wholly   devoid   of   any   merit   and   is,   therefore,



       dismissed.  





                                                                         


                                          41



                     ...................................J.

                                [Altamas Kabir]





                    ...................................J.

                        [Surinder   Singh   Nijjar]




New Delhi;

August 19, 2011.