1. Challenge to tender conditions for supplying supplementary nutritional food to Anganwadi Centres under the ICDS Scheme — dispute over eligibility of local self-help groups versus large corporates. (Para 2 , 3 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 346
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2336, 2337 2338, 2339, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2343, 2344, 2345, 2346, 2347, 2348, 2349, 2350, 2351 of 2019 and SLP (C) Nos. 10103, 29178, 29603, 29955, 30079, 30088, 30156 of 2016, 2177, 2178, 2184, 2187, 2191, 2192, 2415 of 2017, 8244, 16947 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 910 of 2017
Decided On : 26-02-2019
IMPORTANT POINT
Terms of the impugned tender run contrary to PUCL as well as the policy framed by the Government of India.
Headnote:Government contracts – Tender – State deciding to include Soyabean in meals to be supplied to Anganwadi etc under ICDS scheme – Supreme Court in Shagun accepting recipe for take home ration (THR) requiring micronutrient fortified soyabean after process of extrusion considering the recommendation to be that of Government of India – Instantly respondent floating tenders for supply of micronutrient fortified soyabean after process of extrusion – Putting conditions for the suppliers to have automated production units, turnover of Rs. 1 Crore or more etc – Onerous to hitherto suppliers Mahila Mandals – Government of India clarifying that earlier recommendations were of Deputy Technical Director, Western Region wrongly represented to the Court as recommendations of the Government of India – Court in PUCL strongly objecting to grant of supply orders on private contractors in name of fortified micronutrient amounting to backdoor entry in the name of Mahila Sangathans – Held, Court was misled to pass orders in Shagun – Different recipes suggested by different authorities for the Child nutrition programme – Held, it is for the States to decide as to which recipes they want as per local requirement – Held, terms of the impugned tender run contrary to PUCL as well as the policy framed by the Government of India – Sections 4, 5, 6 of National Food Security Act, 2013 and Rules 7 and 9 of Supplementary Nutrition (Under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2015 referred. (Para 31, 36, 60, 51, 52)
W.P. (C) No. 196/2001 – Followed
Civil Appeal No. 7104/2011 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The petitioners in the writ petition filed before the High Court questioned the tender notice dated 08.03.2016 issued by the State of Maharashtra inviting tender for multilevel contract and for supply of ready to cook food to Anganwadi Centres as supplementary nutritional food for children, pregnant women and lactating mothers, adolescents girls under Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS Scheme) as being arbitrary, unreasonable against the spirit of the decision of Supreme Court in PUCL vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 196/2001.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High court.
Finding of the Court:
Terms of the impugned tender run contrary to PUCL as well as the policy framed by the Government of India.
Result: Appeal and writ petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege arbitrary tender conditions favoring corporate houses over local Mahila Mandals in violation of judicial directives — State contends necessity of specialized extrusion technology for nutrition. (Para 3 , 4 , 15 , 16 )
3. Tender conditions requiring high turnover and specific technology were found arbitrary, contrary to Government of India clarifications and the spirit of decentralization to local women's groups. (Para 18 , 20 , 50 )
4. Public tender conditions must not be arbitrarily restrictive or designed to exclude local self-help groups when the scheme's objective is decentralization and community participation. (Para 50 )
5. Tender notice quashed — direction to invite fresh tenders within four weeks based on Union of India policy and decentralized supply at panchayat or group-of-panchayats level. (Para 51 , 52 )
6. Are private contractors permitted for the supply of nutrition in Anganwadis under the ICDS Scheme?
No, the court emphasized that contractors should not be used; instead, ICDS funds should preferably be spent by utilizing village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals for buying grains and preparing meals to ensure decentralization. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Is the use of extrusion technology mandatory for the production of Take Home Ration (THR) in ICDS?
No, the Government of India clarified that suggestions for extrusion technology are only suggestive in nature and not a mandatory recommendation, allowing states to decide recipes based on local requirements and nutritional norms. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 34 , 36 )
8. Can a state impose high turnover requirements in tenders for community-based schemes?
Not if such conditions are arbitrary and effectively exclude the intended participants, such as self-help groups, thereby violating the spirit of the scheme and judicial directives favoring decentralization. (Para 50 )
9. What is the preferred administrative unit for the supply of supplementary nutrition to ensure effective implementation?
The court observed that fixing unit areas as districts can oust smaller players; supply should be decentralized as much as possible, preferably at the panchayat or group-of-panchayats level. (Para 52 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants/petitioners have questioned the judgment and order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and order dated 15.03.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur. The petitioners in the writ petition filed before the High Court i.e. W.P. No. 3359/2016 questioned the tender notice dated 08.03.2016 issued by the State of Maharashtra inviting tender for multilevel contract and for supply of ready to cook food to Anganwadi Centres as supplementary nutritional food for children, pregnant women and lactating mothers, adolescents girls under Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS Scheme). The conditions were questioned by the appellants/petitioners being arbitrary, unreasonable against the spirit of the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 196/2001.
3. The question as stated in the appeal is that the local self- help groups are sought to be ousted by the money power of large corporate houses with the help of the State, the decision by this Court in PUCL vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 196/2001 is being violated and that of Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7104/2011. It is urged that the local organization of women (Mahila Mandals) and self-help groups are best suited to give local food and other necessary efforts to provide supplementary nutritional food for children. The so-called Mahila Mandals who have applied under the tender that has been floated is, in fact, large industrial units and nothing to do with the Mahila Mandals and self-help groups. They are close to certain political personalities in the State of Maharashtra. Industrialists are not supplying good food as compared to these Mahila Mandals in different parts of the country, as accepted by the Union of India in its Report. The imposition of the unrealistic conditions made it impossible for the Mahila Mandals to compete. Thus, the State is entertaining fake business units and is acting contrary to the various decisions of this Court and the spirit of the Scheme.
4. The principal issue raised is whether contracts for the supply of such food for Anganwadis should be given to local Mahila Mandals run along democratic lines with local women participating or whether such contracts ought to be given by the State to large corporates/contractors under the guise of the conditions of the tender. In PUCL vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 196 of 2001, this Court has passed the order, on 07.10.2004, inter-alia to the following effect:-
"The contractors shall not be used for the 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."
5. On 13.12.2006, in PUCL (supra), the Court inter alia passed the following order:-
“......Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/UTs are directed to submit affidavits giving details of the steps that have been taken with regard to the order of this Court of October 7th, 2004 directing that "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." Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/UTs. must indicate a time-frame within which the decentralization of the supply of SNP through local community shall be made.”
6. Thereafter, Food Safety Ordinance, 2013 was promulgated on 5.7.2013 in which provision has been made for the benefit of children in the age group of 6 months to 14 years. The Ordinance which has taken the shape of the Act i.e. National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) aims at to reform the public distribution system and bringing in transparency and accountability apart from creating obligation of the Central Government and the Sta
