VAISHNORANI MAHILA BACHAT GAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 26-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
485
VAISHNORANI MAHILA BACHAT GAT
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Government Contracts/Tender: Eligibility conditions of the
tender – Reasonableness – Contracts for the supply of food for
Anganwadis – Issuance of tender notice by State of Maharashtra –
Supply of ready to cook food to Anganwadi centres as supplementary
nutritional food for children, pregnant women and lactating mothers,
adolescents girls under Integrated Child Development Scheme
(ICDS) – Case of the petitioner that conditions in the tender insisting
on mandatory use of extrusion technology in preparation of meals-
THR(take home ration); that Mahila Mandals to have automated
production units, turnover of Rs.1 crore or more, and that under
the guise of the conditions of the tender, the contract given by the
State to large corporates/contractors instead of the local Mahila
Mandals, thus, the conditions of tender arbitrary and unreasonable
– Held: Imposition of the condition in the tender not in tune with the
spirit of the Act and the orders passed by this Court as well as the
policy framed by the Government of India – Thus, the tender
conditions cannot be held to be valid as they were arbitrarily
fixed – Tender notice issued is struck down – Tenders are directed
to be invited afresh, within the stipulated period strictly as per the
policy and observations made in this judgment – State Government
to make alternative arrangement and are restrained from continuing
the existing system of supply in the interregnum period –
National Food Security Act, 2013.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On 26.2.2010, Government of India sent its
clarification to the Government of Maharashtra regarding the use
of extrusion technology and as to mandatory specifications laid
down in the recipe dated 28.7.2009. It was clarified by the
Government of India that there is no specific recommendation
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 485
    485
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
for the use of extrusion technology or any other technology for
THR. The suggestion given by the Regional DTA, (Western
Region) is only suggestive in nature and not a recommendation
made by the Government of India. It is thus clear that
observations made by this Court in Shagun’s case was based upon
not upon Government of India recommendations but in the letter
of Deputy Technical Director, Western Region, which was wrongly
represented to this Court as recommendations of the Government
of India. In view of the clarification made by the Government of
India, the observations made by this Court as to extrusion
technology stand diluted, based on misrepresentation. By
introducing the extrusion Technology it was pointed out that in
2010 three Mahila Mandals, which were chosen, were found to
be fake and were only acting as fronts for existing companies and
industrialists. Thus, it was urged that the field has been left open
to the industrialists in the conditions of the tender under the
guise of Mahila Mandal’s fake persons are obtaining contracts.
In the judgment rendered by the Aurangabad Bench, it has been
noted that three big contractors were selected who were not really
Mahila Mandals or Mahila self-help groups. [Paras 18, 19, 20,
21, 23, 24] [500-E-F; 501-A-B; 502-A-C; 503-E-F]
1.2 It was submitted rightly that this Court was misled while
rendering the decision in Shagun’s case when it was projected
that it was mandatory to follow the recipes dated 28.7.2009
whereas Government of India itself has clarified that it was only
suggestive and was not the decision of Government of India as
pointed out in the letter dated 26.2.2010. Apart from that after
the decision has been rendered by this Court in Shagun’s case,
the Act has been enacted and new policy has been framed by the
Government of India and thereafter new policies have been filed
by the Government of India on 6.8.2018, contained in the affidavit
of the Secretary, Ministry of Home and Child Development. It
has also been pointed out in the affidavit on behalf of the
Government of India dated 06.08.2018 that the guideline
prescribes the measures for maintaining hygiene and sanitation
at the Anganwadi centers and ensuring food safety. It has also
been pointed out by the Secretary in the affidavit dated 06.08.2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
487
that Supplementary Nutritional Programme (‘SNP’) is
implemented, managed and controlled b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.