Case: Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari San.Marya Vs. State Of Maharashtra

December, 2009, which shows that the appellant had manufactured fortified blended sukhadi premix on 12th December, 2009. Since the appellant did not have a manufacturing unit, the certificate is clearly procured for the purposes of this case. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. In reply to the submissions, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the appellant is concerned only with transparency which must be observed in any tender process. The appellant is only desirous of getting an opportunity to participate in the tender process. 31. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition has been rightly dismissed by the High Court after examination of the entire issue. The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria as contained in Clause 6, as noticed earlier. The aforesaid clause requires that the tenderer should have produced the specified food for the last three consecutive years and supplied the same to Anganwadis in ICDS. Since the appellant did not possess a suitable manufacturing unit, the appellant would be rendered ineligible on this score alone. As pointed out by Mr. C.U. Singh, the appellant admitted in terms in its pleadings in I.A. No. 1 of 2010 that it does not satisfy conditions 6, 7 and 8. We could have, therefore, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the appellant had made a voluntary admission by which it was bound. However, keeping in view the importance of the issues involved, i.e., the provision of supplementary diet to a segment of the Indian population, which is either severely undernourished or in need of extra calories, we have chosen to examine the entire matter to ensure that the Scheme is being implemented in its letter and spirit by all the participating agencies.32. In our view, the High Court also correctly observed that the validity of the eligibility criteria contained in Clause 6 of the tender dated 7th December, 2009 has already been upheld by the Division Bench whilst dismissing the Writ Petition No. 2588 of 2009. The High Court also correctly negated the submissions of the appellant that in spite of not having a unit of its own, the appellant ought to be declared eligible. The 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.33. We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the original Government decision had limited the period of contract to one year. In fact, as demonstrated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the Government decision as well as tender condition clearly stipulated that the contract would be initially for one year. Upon completion of one year, the work of the successful candidate would be reassessed. In case, it is found that the performance has been satisfactory, the tender shall be extended for a period of two more years.34. We are also of the considered opinion that the food, which is to be supplied to the recipients as a part of the supplementary nutrition programme has to be prepared in the manner prescribed by the Government for safety and nutrient composition of the food. It can not be left to uncertainties of the machinery available with individual manufacturers.The successful supplier is duty bound to necessarily comply with all the specifications laid down by the Government in its norms. Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Patwalia, in our opinion, by referring to the various documents, have clearly demonstrated that the appellant is not eligible at all to be even considered in the tender process. It has also been pointed out that all the objections raised by the appellant and other Mahila Mandal / Mahila Sanstha / Mahila Bachat Gat etc. etc. were duly considered by the Government. This is evident from the letters dated 22nd February, 2010 and 23rd February, 2010.35. We are also not impressed by the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the condition of having Rs. 1 crore over the three previous consecutive years, is either arbitrary or whimsical. Mr. C.U. Singh by making detailed reference to the counter affidavit has shown that in the State of Maharashtra, there are 34 districts having an annual value in terms of at-least Rs. 1.7 crores per district. Therefore, the condition of asking for minimum Rs. 1 crore turn over for the last three years can not be said to be arbitrary. In fact, the condition would be of utmost importance.36. We also find substance in the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Patwalia that EOI had deliberately stressed on the need of precise measurements for the preparation of the food. The supplier is required to provide a fine mix of all kinds of ingredients including the revised intake of proteins and calories to the precise level. In fact, the level of precision is earmarked for each kind of food. The concept behind the same can not be permitted to be demonized by referring to it as food prepared by “automated machines”. The procedure adopted is necessary to ensure that there is “zero infection” in the food which is going to be consumed by infants and the children who are already under nourished. It cannot be over emphasised that, since the beneficiaries of the Dense Energy Food and Fortified Blended Mixture are infants from the age group of 6 months to 3 years and pregnant and lactating mothers, it was all the more desirable to have fully automated plants. Such procedure avoids the use of human hands in processes like - handling, cleaning, grinding, extrusion, mixing etc., all of which are done automatically.37. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid considerations can not be said to be extraneous to the purpose for which EOI was floated. 38. Taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition has been rightly dismissed by the High Court after examination of the entire issue. The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria as contained in Clause 6, as noticed earlier. The aforesaid clause requires that the tenderer should have produced the specified food for the last three consecutive years and supplied the same to Anganwadis in ICDS. Since the appellant did not possess a suitable manufacturing unit, the appellant would be rendered ineligible on this score alone. As pointed out by Mr. C.U. Singh, the appellant admitted in terms in its pleadings in I.A. No. 1 of 2010 that it does not satisfy conditions 6, 7 and 8. We could have, therefore, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the appellant had made a voluntary admission by which it was bound. However, keeping in view the importance of the issues involved, i.e., the provision of supplementary diet to a segment of the Indian population, which is either severely undernourished or in need of extra calories, we have chosen to examine the entire matter to ensure that the Scheme is being implemented in its letter and spirit by all the participating agencies.32. In our view, the High Court also correctly observed that the validity of the eligibility criteria contained in Clause 6 of the tender dated 7th December, 2009 has already been upheld by the Division Bench whilst dismissing the Writ Petition No. 2588 of 2009. The High Court also correctly negated the submissions of the appellant that in spite of not having a unit of its own, the appellant ought to be declared eligible. The 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.33. We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the original Government decision had limited the period of contract to one year. In fact, as demonstrated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the Government decision as well as tender condition clearly stipulated that the contract would be initially for one year. Upon completion of one year, the work of the successful candidate would be reassessed. In case, it is found that the performance has been satisfactory, the tender shall be extended for a period of two more years.34. We are also of the considered opinion that the food, which is to be supplied to the recipients as a part of the supplementary nutrition programme has to be prepared in the manner prescribed by the Government for safety and nutrient composition of the food. It can not be left to uncertainties of the machinery available with individual manufacturers.The successful supplier is duty bound to necessarily comply with all the specifications laid down by the Government in its norms. Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Patwalia, in our opinion, by referring to the various documents, have clearly demonstrated that the appellant is not eligible at all to be even considered in the tender process. It has also been pointed out that all the objections raised by the appellant and other Mahila Mandal / Mahila Sanstha / Mahila Bachat Gat etc. etc. were duly considered by the Government. This is evident from the letters dated 22nd February, 2010 and 23rd February, 2010.35. We are also not impressed by the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the condition of having Rs. 1 crore over the three previous consecutive years, is either arbitrary or whimsical. Mr. C.U. Singh by making detailed reference to the counter affidavit has shown that in the State of Maharashtra, there are 34 districts having an annual value in terms of at-least Rs. 1.7 crores per district. Therefore, the condition of asking for minimum Rs. 1 crore turn over for the last three years can not be said to be arbitrary. In fact, the condition would be of utmost importance.36. We also find substance in the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Patwalia that EOI had deliberately stressed on the need of precise measurements for the preparation of the food. The supplier is required to provide a fine mix of all kinds of ingredients including the revised intake of proteins and calories to the precise level. In fact, the level of precision is earmarked for each kind of food. The concept behind the same can not be permitted to be demonized by referring to it as food prepared by. The procedure adopted is necessary to ensure that there isin the food which is going to be consumed by infants and the children who are already under nourished. It cannot be over emphasised that, since the beneficiaries of the Dense Energy Food and Fortified Blended Mixture are infants from the age group of 6 months to 3 years and pregnant and lactating mothers, it was all the more desirable to have fully automated plants. Such procedure avoids the use of human hands in processes like - handling, cleaning, grinding, extrusion, mixing etc., all of which are done automatically.37. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid considerations can not be said to be extraneous to the purpose for which EOI was floated.