SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 399

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1301 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mandatory procurement by Government – There is no mandatory minimum procurement ‘right’ of an individual MSE.
(2) Judicial Review – Power of judicial review in matters concerning implementation of policy objectives should transcend standard power of judicial review to issue writs to perform statutory duty and proceed to examine whether duty bearers, authorities and bodies constituted properly and also whether they are functioning effectively and efficiently.

Headnote:

(A) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 11 – Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 2012 – Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 2012 – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 19 – Mandatory procurement by Government – There is no mandatory minimum procurement ‘right’ of an individual MSE – However, there is certainly a statutory foundation for Procurement Preference Policy, 2012, having force of law as it encapsulates a mandate and discloses a specific purpose – So long as policy remains in realm of even rules framed for guidance of executive and administrative authorities it may bind those authorities as declarations of what they are expected to do under it – No person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with Government – All that he can claim is that in competing for contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated, to detriment of public interest. (Paras 21, 31 and 39)

(B) Judicial Review – Scope and ambit – Power of judicial review in matters concerning implementation of policy objectives should transcend standard power of judicial review to issue writs to perform statutory duty and proceed to examine whether duty bearers, authorities and bodies constituted properly and also whether they are functioning effectively and efficiently – While exercising judicial review of administrative action in context of Statutes, laws, rules or policies establishing statutory or administrative bodies to implement provisions of the Act or its policy, first duty of constitutional courts is to ensure that these bodies are in a position to effectively and efficiently perform their obligations – This approach towards judicial review has multiple advantages – In first place, while continually operating in the field with domain experts, these bodies acquire domain expertise, consequence of which would also be informed decision-making and consistency – Further, critical mass of institutional memory acquired by these bodies will have direct bearing on the systematic development of sector and this will also help handling polycentric issues – Thirdly, while continuously being on the field, and having acquired capability of making real-time assessments about working of policies, these bodies will be in a position to visualize course correction for future policymaking. (Paras 22 and 23)

Facts of the case:

Following two questions arise for consideration: –

1. Does MSMED Act, coupled with Procurement Preference Policy, 2012 mandate procurement of 25 percent of goods and services by government, and its instrumentalities from the Micro and Small Industrial Enterprises? and

2. Is prescription of mandatory minimum turnover clause in NITs violative of Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution, provisions of the MSMED Act and the Procurement Preference Policy, 2012?

Findings of Court:

Grievance Cell is specifically mandated to take up issues relating to imposition of unreasonable conditions in tenders floated by Government departments or agencies that put MSEs at a disadvantage. This will certainly include prescription of minimum turnover clauses. The functioning of the Grievance Cell has come under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India [Report No. 18 of 2018, ‘Compliance with Provisions of Public Procurement Policy, 2012 For Micro and Small Enterprises’, (CAG, 2018).

Result : Writ petition disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. The petitioner before us, a Micro Enterprise, and its founder Dr. Jitendra Nath Verma, raise two important questions. The first question relates to the ‘right’ of Micro and Small Enterprises1[Hereinafter referred to as the “MSE(s)”.] to supply 25% of goods and services to be procured by the Government and its instrumentalities under its Procurement Policy. The second issue relates to the legality of ‘minimum turnover clauses’ prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tenders2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘NIT’.] issued by the Government and its instrumentalities. Determination of these questions required us to consider the ‘rights’ and duties flowing out of Section 11 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, 3[Hereinafter referred to as the “MSMED Act/Act”.] prescribing a Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 20124[Hereinafter referred to as the “Procurement Order 2012”] and this consideration led us to examine the legal status of the Procurement Order 2012.

1.1. Having examined the legal regime concerning the promotion and development of MSEs, we have come to the conclusion that the Procurement Order 2012 has the force of law and is enforceable. While the Act and the Procurement Order 2012 do not create an ‘enforceable right’ for an individual MSE, the statutory authorities and administrative bodies created thereunder are impressed with enforceable duties. They are accountable and subject to judicial review. We have also explained how the scope of judicial review in these matters should transcend the standard power of judicial review to issue writs of mandamus to perform the statutory duty and proceed to examine whether the duty bearers, the authorities and bodies are constituted properly and whether they are functioning effectively and efficiently. By ensuring institutional integrity we achieve our institutional objectives.

1.2. Having considered the establishment of the National Board for MSMEs, Advisory Committee, Facilitation Council under the statute, and in particular, the establishment of the Review Committee and the Grievance Cell under the Procurement Order 2012, we have issued specific directions to address the issues arising for consideration and issue necessary guidelines for the effective implementation of the Procurement Order 2012.

2. Brief facts : The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows. The first Petitioner is a Micro Enterprise under Section 7 of the MSMED Act, 2006, and operates in the pharmaceuticals and medical biotechnology sector. More specifically, the Enterprise’s business involves the manufacturing, development and marketing of healthcare products. The second petitioner, the founder and managing director of the enterprise, is a specialist in the application of ‘Liposome Technology’ for healthcare, a technology utilised for delivering drugs to the human body. Put simply, this involves enveloping a drug in a bubble made of fats or lipids, which can be dissolved and absorbed directly into the specific site of the body targeted for treatment. Pertinent in the context of this petition is the company’s production of a nano-drug called ‘Liposomal Amphotericin B Suspension in Saline- Fungisome’ (‘LAmB’), which is a special form of medication to treat serious fungal infections. The Enterprise claims that LAmB is the only medication in India that treats fungal infection effectively and generates the least amount of toxicity in the kidney compared to other medications formulated and sold by other players in the field. The petitioners state that the Government of India has also recognised LAmB as a critical life-saving drug, and recently, the drug proved instrumental in treating patients suffering from mucormycosis amid the rise of COVID-19.

3. The Enterprise claims that it has attempted to participate in several public procurement processes to supply the drug it manufactures. However, it continu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top