2011 Supreme(SC) 791

2011 (8) Supreme 674
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7104 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29363 of 2010]
Decided on : 19-8-2011

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 32-Scheme called Integrated Child Development Scheme” floated by Central Government to improve health and nutrition status of the children between the age group of 0-6 years; pregnant and lactating women, by providing them with supplementary food - Under said Scheme, certain kind of specified food was proposed to be supplied through AWCS-Lack of progress made in implementation of said Scheme prompted Peoples Union for Civil Liberties to file a Writ Petition seeking necessary directions for implementation of the Scheme- Appellant a society having several years of experience in supplying hot cooked meal (ready to eat food) for children and other beneficiaries of Anganwadi Centres in State of Maharashtra- Representations made by appellant requesting respondent 1 and 2 to consider them for supply of the food under ICDS Scheme- Case of appellant that without considering these representations, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 signed an agreement, awarding contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for a period of one year, with a clause for extension of two years-Writ Petition-Dismissed-Appeal against judgment of High Court by which it dismissed the petition of appellant thereby affirming the decision of awarding contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6-Writ petition had been rightly dismissed by High Court after examination of the entire issue- High Court concluded that appellant failed to satisfy eligibility criteria as contained in Clause 6 - Said clause required that tenderer should have produced the specified food for the last three consecutive years and supplied same to Anganwadi’s in ICDS- Since appellant did not possess a suitable manufacturing unit, appellant was rendered ineligible on this score alone- High Court also found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was only respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who were suitable for grant of contract- Appeal dismissed (Paras 31, 32)

        Integrated Child Development Scheme- Supply of food under ICDS Scheme- Award of contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6-Challenge thereagainst- Contention of appellant that original Government decision had limited the period of contract to one year held unsustainable- In fact, Government decision as well as tender condition clearly stipulated that contract would be initially for one year- Upon completion of one year, the work of the successful candidate would be reassessed- In case, it was found that the performance has been satisfactory, tender shall be extended for a period of two more years-Food, which was to be supplied to the recipients as a part of supplementary nutrition programme had to be prepared in the manner prescribed by the Government for safety and nutrient composition of the food- It could not be left to uncertainties of machinery available with individual manufacturers-The successful supplier was duty bound to necessarily comply with all the specifications laid down by Government in its norms- Evidence on record showed that appellant was not eligible at all to be even considered in the tender process- All the objections raised by appellant and other Mahila Mandal / Mahila Sanstha / Mahila Bachat Gat etc. etc. were duly considered by Government- Again contention of appellant that the condition of having Rs. 1 crore over the three previous consecutive years, was arbitrary held unsustainable- EOI had deliberately stressed on the need of precise measurements for the preparation of the food- -Said considerations could not be said to be extraneous to the purpose for which EOI was floated- Appeal having no merit dismissed (Paras 33 to 38)

       Facts of the Case :

        A. Scheme called Integrated Child Development Scheme” was floated herein in the instant case by Central Government to improve health and nutrition status of the children between the age group of 0-6 years; pregnant and lactating women, by providing them with supplementary food. Under said Scheme, certain kind of specified food was proposed to be supplied through AWCS. Lack of progress made in implementation of said Scheme prompted Peoples Union for Civil Liberties to file a Writ Petition seeking necessary directions for implementation of the Scheme.

        B. Appellant a society having several years of experience in supplying hot cooked meal (ready to eat food) for children and other beneficiaries of Anganwadi Centres in State of Maharashtra. Representations were made by appellant requesting respondent 1 and 2 to consider them for supply of the food under ICDS Scheme. Case of appellant that without considering these representations, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 signed an agreement, awarding contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for a period of one year, with a clause for extension of two years. Writ Petition filed by appellant was Dismissed.

        C. Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court by which it dismissed the petition of appellant thereby affirming the decision of awarding contract to respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held Writ petition had been rightly dismissed by High Court after examination of the entire issue. High Court concluded that appellant failed to satisfy eligibility criteria as contained in Clause 6. Said clause required that tenderer should have produced the specified food for the last three consecutive years and supplied same to Anganwadi’s in ICDS. Since appellant did not possess a suitable manufacturing unit, appellant was rendered ineligible on this score alone.High Court also found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was only respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who were suitable for grant of contract. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.