SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli, J.
M/s. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6693 of 2022 and with Civil Appeal No. 6694 of 2022
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Government Contract – Award of – Parameters – Welfare State plays a crucial role in aiding realisation of the socio-economic rights which are recognised by the Constitution – Constitution recognises pursuit of well-being of citizens as a desirable goal – In doing this Constitution entrusts State with a duty to ensure well-being of citizens – Government actions aimed at ensuring well-being of citizens cannot be perceived through lens of a ‘largess’ – Government contracts must be awarded by a transparent process – Process of inviting tenders ensures a level playing field for competing entities – While there may be situations which warrant a departure from precept of inviting tenders or conducting public auctions, departure must not be unreasonable or discriminatory – Inviting tenders and conducting public auctions are considered to be preferred methods of allocation for two reasons: firstly procurement can be made at the best price; and secondly, allocation is through a transparent process – However, if purpose of allocation by State is not revenue maximization, State could award contracts through other methods, provided it is non-arbitrary and meets requirements of Article 14. (Paras 11, 16 and 20)
Result : Applications dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
This judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:
| This judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis: | ||
| 1.0 | Facts | 3 |
| 2.0 | Submissions | 7 |
| 3.0 | Analysis | 10 |
| 3.1 | State Largesse: conflation of power and duty | 11 |
| 3.2 | Judicial review of government contracts: extent and ambit | 11 |
| 3.2.1 | Tender: a constitutional requirement? | 14 |
| 3.3 | Interpretation of Paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the Operational Guidelines | 19 |
| 3.4 | Validity of award of Government contract to IMPCL | 21 |
1. The first respondent, Kerala Ayurvedic Co-operative Society Limited, instituted proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order for the purchase of Ayurvedic medicines issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in favour of Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited,1[“IMPCL”]. By a judgment dated 18 October 2019, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition and directed that the State of Uttar Pradesh must purchase Ayurvedic medicines by adopting a transparent process after inviting tenders. The State of Uttar Pradesh and IMPCL instituted proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court. The principle issue is whether, in view of paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission,2[“NAM”], the appellant could have procured Ayurvedic drugs solely from IMPCL without inviting tenders.
1.0 Facts
2. In September 2014, the Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India launched NAM, inter alia, to promote the AYUSH medical system and provide cost-effective AYUSH Services. Paragraph 3(ii) of the Operational Guidelines of NAM provides that 75 percent of the admissible assistance will be provided as grant-in-aid by the Central Government while the remaining 25 percent must be met by the States, except in the North- Eastern States where the assistance by the Centre and the States shall be in the ratio of 90:10.
3. Paragraph 4(vi) provides guidelines for the procurement of Ayurvedic medicines. Paragraph 4(vi)(b) states that ‘at least’ 50 percent of the grant-in-aid must be used for procuring medicines from IMPCL or Public Sector Undertakings,3[“PSU”], pharmacies under State Governments and co-operatives. Paragraph 4(vi) of the Operational Guidelines is extracted below:
“(vi) (a) Essential drugs and medicines required for implementation of the Mission will have to be procured from Essential Drugs List (EDL) for Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy published by Department of AYUSH, Government of India.
(b) At least 50% of the Grant-in-aid provided should be used for procuring medicines from M/s Indian Medicine Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (a Central Public Sector Undertaking) or from Public Sector undertaking, pharmacies under State Governments and Co-operatives manufacturing units and having Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) compliance, keeping in view the need for ensuring quality of AYUSH drugs and medicines.
(c) The remaining Grant-in-aid provided under the Mission for purchase of medicines may be use for procuring medicines as per Essential Drugs List (EDL) of Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy published by Department of AYUSH, Government of India, from other Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) compliant units having valid manufacturing licenses.
(d) Essential non drug items like dressing items for first aid etc. may be provided out of the amount sanctioned for medicine/essential drugs under different components required for achieving the desired objectives subject to a ceiling of five percent of the total amount sanctioned for the purpose.”
4. The Uttar Pradesh State AYUSH Society has been purchasing
C.K Achuthan v. State of Kerala
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
Sterling Computers Ltd. v M/s M& Publications Limited
Jesper I. Slong v. State of Meghalaya
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India
New Horizons Limited v. Union of India
Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal
Haji T.M Hassam Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation (1988) 1 SCC 166 – Relied [Para 16]
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
Natural Resources Allocation, in re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012
Vallianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India
Nagar Nigam v. Al Farheem Meat Exporters (P) Ltd.
State of Tamil Nadu v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association
Welfare State plays a crucial role in aiding realisation of the socio-economic rights which are recognised by the Constitution – Constitution recognises pursuit of well-being of citizens as a desirab....
Government contracts must be awarded transparently through competitive tendering processes, ensuring compliance with principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.
Courts lack the authority to direct government policy-making in procurement; however, they can mandate consideration of representations from affected parties to ensure lawful treatment.
The court upheld that 100% reservation for MSEs in public procurement is valid under the MSE Policy, rejecting claims of arbitrariness towards tender selection processes.
The eligibility criteria in a tender for supply of cooked diet to Government hospitals, requiring credential of similar nature of a completed single work having minimum value of 40% of the estimated ....
The procurement policy mandates that specified items must be exclusively acquired from Micro and Small Enterprises, rejecting attempts to disguise procurement as a works contract.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.