IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Appu Food Products rep. by its Authorised Signatory P. Uma Maheshwari & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW.4-3) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 22878, 22888, 22945, 22946, 22956, 24369, 25142, 25284, 26282, 26732, 26890 & 27059 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.26750 to 26752, 26761, 26762, 26837 to 26840, 26851 to 26853, 28372, 28373, 29211, 29212, 29391, 29392, 30550, 30532, 31096, 31231, 31236, 31470 & 31471 of 2018
Decided On : 21-02-2019
Indian Railways Act - Section 27A - Tenders Act - Section 11 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - records pertaining to Tender - Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programmed - quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and illegal - Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the culminating into the order of the first respondent dated 20.08.2018 made in G.O.(Ms) No.57 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program (SW 4-3) Department and the consequential tender notification issued by the second respondent dated 20.08.2018 in Tender No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to follow the earlier procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.264 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP) Department dated 17.10.2012 and the conditions prescribed by the second respondent pursuant to the same – Held, That apart, the qualifying conditions for deciding the eligible tenderers and other stipulations mentioned in the consequential tender notification dated 20.08.2018 issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.57, are neither supportive of the alleged reasoning i.e., benefiting poultry farmers, nor have any nexus to the object of the Nutritious Meal Scheme i.e., ensuring uninterrupted supply of quality eggs at a competitive same price for the whole year to the children. The terms and conditions framed in the tender notification dated 20.08.2018 are violative and contrary to the relevant Act and Rules. That apart, there is no basis to state that producers of eggs would be better suited persons than the egg suppliers to ensure adequate and proper uninterrupted supply of eggs to several thousand noon meal centres all over the State. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.57 and the tender notification have nothing to offer to the beneficiaries, who are covered under the Noon Meal programme, but it is only a lame excuse that even small producers would get benefit by the issuance of the said G.O. When the decision taken by the Government was challenged and was subsequently, approved by the Supreme Court, they are estopped from adopting different method, which was negatived in the earlier proceedings. G.O.Ms.No.57 and the subsequent tender notification are arbitrary, mala fide, bad in law and not in public interest, as the same are contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court and it creates monopoly in favour of one party, without affording an opportunity to others to compete. Since the same are not based on any rational or relevant principle, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also the rule of administrative law, which inhibits the arbitrary action by the State. Hence, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.57, i.e., zone-wise tender and the terms of the subsequent Notification excluding the egg traders and suppliers like that of the petitioners, are colourable exercise of power and are unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory and also violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is nonetheless important to mention here that the public interest is paramount; there should not be any arbitrariness in the tender matters; all the participants in the tender process should be treated alike and there should not be any discrimination and unreasonableness - petitions are closed
ORDER :
(Prayer: WP.No.22878/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent contained in the impugned G.O.(Ms) No.57 dated 20.08.2018 and all consequential proceedings thereto, including Tender No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and illegal.
WP.No.22888/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with Tender No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018 and quash the same as arbitrary and unreasonable.
WP.No.22945/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.57 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 20.08.2018 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct respondents 2 and 3 to allow poultry farmers from other States to participate in the tender.
WP.No.22946/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Tender No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018, which opens on 05.09.2018 issued by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct respondents 2 and 3 to allow poultry farmers from other States to participate in the tender.
WP.No.22956/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the G.O.Ms.No.57, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 20.08.2018 issued by the first respondent and the consequential tender notification issued by the second respondent in Roc.No.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to float block wise tender for procurement of eggs by revising the terms and conditions in the interest of the small poultry farmers.
WP.No.24369/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(Ms) No.57 dated 20.08.2018 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program (NMP.3) Department and the consequential Tender No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to revert to State level yearly tender.
WP.No.25142/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the culminating into the order of the first respondent dated 20.08.2018 made in G.O.(Ms) No.57 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program (SW 4-3) Department and the consequential tender notification issued by the second respondent dated 20.08.2018 in Tender No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to follow the earlier procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.264 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP) Department dated 17.10.2012 and the conditions prescribed by the second respondent pursuant to the same.
WP.No.25284/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.(Ms) No.57 dated 20.08.2018 on the file of the first respondent culminating in the Tender Notification No.Roc.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to issue a fresh tender notification on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.264 dated 17.10.2012.
WP.No.26282/2018: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent's Tender Notice in Roc.No.20304/NMP/2018 dated 20.08.2018 a
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
AL Kalra v. P&E Corporation of India
APM Terminals B.V. v. Union of India and another
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and others
B.D.Yadav and another v. Administrator of the City of Nagpur and another
Bannari Amman Sugars v. Commercial Tax Officer and other
Bharti Airtel v. Union of India
Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar
Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd v. S.P.Gururaja and others
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, (1950) S.C.R. 869
Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Dhingra Construction v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Directorate of Education and Others vs. Educomp Datamaatics Ltd. & Ors.
EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd v. State of West Bengal
Essar Steel Limited v. Union of India and others
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
In Re: Natural Resources Allocation
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others
Jespar I. Slong v. State of Meghalaya and others
Jindal Stain steel Ltd v. State of Haryana
JSW Infrastructure Limited and another v. Kakinada Seaports Limited and others
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu & Kasmir (1980) 4 SCC 1: AIR 1980 SC 1992
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala and others
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala and Others
Lala Harichand Seroa Vs. Mizo District Council and Anr.
Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North East Frontier Railway
Meenakshi Mills Vs. Union of India
Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
Montecarlo Limited v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and another v. BVG India Limited and others
P.T.R. Exports v. Union of India
Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad
Railway Board v. Observor Publications
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India
Reliance Telecom Limited v. Union of India and another
Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and others
State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sundar and others
State of U.P and Another v. Johri Mal
State of WB v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
State or business affected by public interest Saghir vs. State of U.P.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Tejas Constructions and Infrastructure Limited v. Municipal Council, Sendhwa and another
The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Treveli Versus State of Gujarat
Union of India and Another v. International Trading Co. and Another
Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation
Union of India Vs. Indo Afghan Agencies
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.