Back
2012 Supreme(AP) 581
2012 (5) ALT 516
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Boodati Radha Krishnaiah & Others
Versus
The State Project Director & Others
W.P.Nos.861 of 2012, 5114 of 2012 & 15738 of 2012
Decided on: 06-07-2012
For the Petitioners:G. Sridhar Reddy, L. Ravichander, Senior Counsel for Milind G. Gokhle, G.M. Mohiuddin, Rajasekhar Thallapally, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, D. Ramesh, R5, D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, R6, A.V. Sesha Sai, R7, Kamaraju Gedda Srinivasa Rao, R8, B. Adinarayana Rao, R9, Deepak Bhattacharjee, Advocates.
Headnote:A) TENDERS - Government of India Policy Guidelines - Manual of Financial Management and Procurement, Paragraph 118 (b) – Short-listing the number of uniform suppliers by empanelling the supplier on the basis of a pre-tenders submitted by the State Government, from which the individual schools can select the supplier in a limited bidding, is not contrary to the guidelines framed by GpI that the uniform cloth shall be selected by the schools individually. (Paras 18 and 19)
B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226:- While exercising the judicial review of calling the tender of uniform cloth for the school from a a panel of supplier short listed by the respondent No:1, the court rejected to interfere with the decision as there is nothing wrong in the decision making process in the absence of any allegations of mala fides in the process. (Para 34)
C) TENDERS - Government of India Policy Guidelines, Paras 6 (iii) and 5:- Mere empanelment of respondent No.4 (A.P. Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society and respondent No.9 (National Textiles Corporation) in the list of suppliers of uniform cloth does not amount to giving preference to the State Undertaking contrary to the GoI policies as they have to compete with the other private players. (Para 36)
1. As the subject matter of the dispute raised in these Writ Petitions is common, they are heard and being disposed of together.
2. In order to translate Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, conferring fundamental right on the children of the age group of 6 to 14 years to free and compulsory education into a reality, the Parliament has enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short "the RTE Act"). As a part of implementation of the provisions of the RTE Act, the Government of India evidently initiated several measures. One such measure is providing free uniforms for all the children belonging to SC/ST/BPL families studying in Government schools. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, addressed letter No.15/4/2011-SSA(PR), dated 8-6-2011 to State Project Director, Rajiv Vidya Mission (Sarva Siksha Abhiyan)-respondent No.1 (for short “RVM”) in all these Writ Petitions. It is inter alia stated in this letter that as it was noticed that uniforms constitute an expense which poor families are often not able to afford and with a view to mitigate this problem, a scheme for provision of two sets of uniform for all girls belonging to SC/ST/BPL families studying in Government schools within a ceiling of Rs.400/- per child per annum, has been introduced under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) and included in the revised SSA Framework of Implementation. It is suggested that in order to access the Government of India (GOI) funds, the Right to Education Rules of the States must notify uniforms as a child entitlement which would enable the boys of Above Poverty Line (APL) category to get uniforms under the State funds. The letter has laid down detailed norms for procurement of the uniforms. I shall advert to these details at an appropriate stage.
3. Purporting to give effect to the above mentioned letter of the GOI, the RVM has evolved a methodology for short-listing Composite Mills which can supply uniforms to the respective Government schools in the State. The document under which the methodology is laid down and norms fixed is titled ‘Expression of Interest (EOI) from the Composite Textile Mills for Empanelment’ (for short “EOI”). In pursuance of the EOI, 21 applications were received by the RVM. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.861/2012 and 5114/2012 also submitted their EOI applications. A Central Government organization by name Rail India Technical and Economical Society Limited (RITES) was appointed as the Technical Consultant and on the guidance of this Consultant, the RVM has shortlisted four mills which are respondent Nos.5 to 8 in W.P.No.5114/2012, who are also respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.15738/2012 (For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.5114/2012). Subsequently, the National Textiles Corporation (NTC) and A.P. Handloom Weavers’ Co-operative Society Limited (APCO), a State Level society funded by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, were also added to the list for two Districts each.
4. As noted hereinabove, except the petitioners in W.P.No.15738/2012, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.861/2012 and 5114/2012 have filed their EOI applications. However, as admittedly they did not satisfy the requirements laid down in the EOI, they were not short-listed for empanelment. Feeling aggrieved by their exclusion from the short-listed panel, the petitioners in these two Writ Petitions have filed the said Writ Petitions.
5. While the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.5114/2012 and 15783/2012 is common, W.P.No.861/2012 is based on different premises altogether. In the first mentioned two Writ Petitions, the fulcrum of the case of the petitioners therein is that the RVM has completely diluted the GOI Policy guidelines and acted in total deviation thereof by undertaking a method which is not laid down therein. Their further case is that even if for bona fide reasons, the RVM has chosen to depart f
