Bombay High Court
Renuka Mata Mahila Bachat Gat Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 15 October, 2024
Author: R.G.Avachat
Bench: R.G.Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:25003-DB
WP No.9372 of 2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9372 OF 2024
1. Renuka Mata Mahila Bachat Gat, Dharashiv,
Through its President,
Jaya Masu Pethe,
Age : 43 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Marwad Galli, Dharashiv,
Dist. Dharashiv
2. Kalparaj Mahila Bachat Gat, Naldurg,
Through its president,
Smt. Rakhi Sakharam Gaikwad,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Indira Nagar, Naldurg,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad
3. Bharati Mahila Bachat Gat, Dharashiv,
Through its President,
Smt. Rajiya Yasin Kureshi,
Age : 46 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Raja Colony, Vairag Road, Dharashiv,
Tq. and Dist. Dharashiv
4. Bhagyashree Mahila Bachat Gat, Dharashiv,
Through its President,
Gitanjali w/o. Prashant Todkar,
Age : 41 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Ramnagar, Laxmi Colony, Dharashiv,
Tq. and Dist. Dharashiv
5. Mahalaxmi Mahila Bachat Gat, Kalamb,
Through its president,
Jayshree Nitin Mahajan,
Age : 39 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb,
Dist. Dharashiv
6. Ashtbhuja Mahila Bachat Gat, Tuljapur,
Through its President,
Rupali Pramod Ghadge,
2 WP No.9372 of 2024
Age : 36 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary for Women and
Child Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Commissioner for Women and
Child Degelopment, Maharashtra State,
Commissioners Office for Integrated Child
Development Service Scheme,
Raigad Bhawan, Rear wing, first floor,
C.B.D. Belapur, New Mumbai
3. The District Collector, Osmanabad
4. The Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad,
Through its Dy. Chief Executive Officer,
(Child Development Department)
5. Just Kitchen Private Ltd., Nagpur,
r/o. K.H. No.101/1, 101/2, 102107,
Kapsi Budruk, Tq. Kamptee,
Tq. Nagpur ..Respondents
----
Mr.B.R.Kedar, Advocate for petitioners
Dr.Kalpalata Patil - Bharaswadkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Mr.V.V.Gujar, Advocate for respondent no.4
Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for respondent no.5
----
CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 11, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 15, 2024
3 WP No.9372 of 2024
JUDGMENT (Per R.G.Avachat, J.):
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are Women's self-help groups. They have
filed present Writ Petition with the following main prayers:-
A] ....
B] By issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ the respondents may kindly be
directed to continue to issue supply orders of
processed food under THR scheme in favour of the
petitioners, in respective areas which are already
allotted to the petitioner Bachat Gats, as per the
tender notice dated 28/12/2021.
C] By issuing writ of prohibition or any other
appropriate writ the respondents may kindly be
restrained from issuing any interim supply order of
processed food under THR scheme of the units
already allotted in favour of petitioner Bachat Gats
in Dharashiv district, in favour of any other
agencies.
D] .....
E] .....
F] .....
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the self-help groups of women (petitioners), which are also known as
Mahila Bachat Gats, have been working in Dharashiv district for last
few years. The petitioners were allotted a contract by the
respondents for supply of micro-nutrient fortified blended food (for
short, "Take Home Ration - THR Scheme") to the children and
pregnant women under the policy of Central and State Government,
in urban and rural areas. Respondent no.2 is Commissioner for
Women and Child Development, State of Maharashtra. Respondent
no.4 is Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv; while respondent no.5 is the
company in whose favour a contract/tender has been allotted for
supply of THR to the Anganwadis in the area of Dharashiv district, to
which the petitioners have presently been providing THR, pursuant
to the contract entered into with them. Initially, a contract was
entered into for a period of one year with a clause for extension of
further one year, on condition of satisfactory performance of the
petitioners' self-help groups.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit
that respondent nos.1 to 4, State instrumentalities, issued a
consolidated tender in the year 2023 by making six divisions.
Tenders were allotted to six persons only, for supply of THR to
1,10,446 Anganwadis in the State of Maharashtra, inclusive of
21,152 Anganwadis in Aurangabad Division. One of the conditions
of the tender notice was to deposit the amount equivalent to 2% of
the tender-value as earnest money along with the application for
allotment of tender. The petitioners being financially poor members
of the self-help groups were made to be out in participating in the
tender process in view of the said clause. The tenders have been
allotted to six persons with issuing supply orders including various
clauses. Clause 4 of the supply order is the subject-matter of
interpretation in this Writ Petition. According to learned counsel, as
per the said clause, the only works allotted to the institutions as per
the tender process in view of the letter dated 09.08.2019, having
completed two years tenure, were only comprised in the supply
order dated 03.01.2024. According to him, the Anganwadis in
respect of which, the period of contract had not come to an end, a
fresh tender process was expected to be initiated post completion of
two years' contract period. Learned counsel meant to say that the
period of two years of contract for supply order issued in petitioners'
favour was yet to be completed and therefore, the Anganwadis to
which the petitioners have been supplying THR, still, holds the field.
He would further submit that in respect of these Anganwadis,
respondent nos.1 to 4 are bound to issue fresh tender notice and
until allotment of the fresh contract to the successful bidder, the
petitioners' self-help groups are entitled to continue to supply THR.
The tenders allotted to the petitioners were dated 28.12.2021. The
further submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners pertain to
emotional ground that the petitioners being poor women and have
invested their money by selling their ornaments/Stridhan, etc. We,
therefore, do not propose to refer to his further submissions, which
find place in the respective paragraphs of the writ petition.
5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent
nos.1 and 2. We have perused the same along with the documents
placed on record by the petitioners and the respondents as well. The
contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply and the documents filed in
its support, may form part of our reasons to reach the conclusion in
deciding the Writ Petition and therefore, we do not propose to
reiterate the same here at. A bit reference to some of the averments
is, however, unavoidable.
6. Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS)
was said to be a specialised department of women and child
development in the State of Maharashtra. It has been submitted on
affidavit that the judgment dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3359 of 2016 was challenged
before the Apex Court. Pursuant to the judgment delivered by the
Apex Court on 26.02.2019, a new policy was formulated by the State
in 2019. The tenders were said to have been invited in consonance
with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the said judgment
and in accordance with the State policy dated 09.08.2019. The State
policy of 2019 envisaged a decentralised selection process and
despite relaxing various tender conditions, the process did not result
expected result. The petitioners were selected in 2021 for supply of
THR to five Anganwadis for a period of one year extendable by
another year. Respondent nos.1 to 4 claim that repeated attempts
made for selection of self-help groups for supply of THR from 2019 to
2022 achieved bare minimum success in the State. There was entire
shift in the policy of the Central Government. On 13.01.2021, the
Central Government issued streamlined guidelines which defined
quality assurance, roles and responsibility of duty holders, procedure
for procurement, supply chain management, etc. Those guidelines
have been placed on record. The Central Government, thus, de-
notified the Supplementary Nutrition Rules, 2017, in June, 2021. On
01.08.2022, the Central Government forwarded a scheme titled as
"Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan (2.0) Scheme" to all the States.
These guidelines did not include any condition for engagement of
self-help groups for supply of THR. The State Government, therefore,
decided to invite fresh tenders for supply of THR. The tender process
was initiated in 2023, to select the new contractors for supply of THR
consequent upon the policy changes and considering the past
experience as well as the requirements of the new policy, rules,
guidelines, GFR provisions, etc. Accordingly, the tender was
published on 31.03.2023 in various English and Marathi dailies. The
terms and conditions were challenged before this Court in Writ
Petition No.5942 of 2023. Said Writ Petition along with the connected
Writ Petitions were decided by the Division Bench of this Court at the
Principle Seat, on 06.12.2023. The main claim of the petitioners
therein was that self-help groups have preferential right to
participate in the distribution of THR based on decentralised
distribution policy being a fundamental principle. Those Writ Petitions
were dismissed on merits vide judgment and order dated
06.12.2023. A Special Leave Petition preferred against the same
also failed on 14.12.2023. Till then, the tender process was put on
hold by the State authorities. Admittedly, the petitioners did not
participate in the said tender process.
7. The tender document/notice inviting tender in terms of
the new policy is on record. Clause 2 thereof indicate 1,10,446
Anganwadi centres were to be provided with THR. It has been
specifically stated on affidavit by the respondents/authorities that
the tender notice pertained to Anganwadis covering all the areas
across the State, including Anganwadis to which the petitioners were
granted contract to supply THR for two years. Admittedly, the period
thereof came to an end on the last day of August, 2023. It appears
that by virtue of the interim order passed in this Writ Petition dated
03.09.2024, the petitioners have been permitted to supply THR until
15.10.2024, meaning thereby the period of contract whereunder the
petitioners were allowed to supply THR, has already come to an end
and even pursuant to the new tender notice and further process
thereof, the tender to supply THR to Anganwadis, to which the
petitioners have been presently supplying the same, has been
granted to respondent no.5 herein. Needless to mention, the
petitioners did not have any statutory or contractual right to claim
grant of contract or supply order in their favour. Learned counsel for
the petitioners does not dispute the same. As stated above, he
harps upon clause 4 of the supply order issued on 03.01.2024. For
better appreciation, said clause is reproduced below:-
४) यापूर्वी दि. ९/८/२०१९ रोजीच्या पत्रांनवये राबविण्यात
आलेल्या निविदे प्रक्रियेअंती पुरवठा आदेशाच्या दिनांकापासून ज्या
संस्थांच्या कामकाजाची दोन वर्षाची मुदत संपुष्टात आलेली आहे
अशा संस्थांचे काम या आदेशान्वये रद्द करण्यात येत आहे. सदर रद्द
झालेल्या अंगणवाडी केंद्राचे काम नव्याने निवड झालेल्या
पुरवठादाराकडे वर्ग करण्यात यावेत.
Interpretation of the aforesaid clause would suggest that
the order of supply to these Anganwadis was to be made after the
contract period of two years was over. Said clause is not susceptible
to more than one interpretation.
8. The petitioners were well aware that their contract was
to come to an end on 31.08.2023. The State Government, pursuant
to the revised policy and guidelines, issued fresh tender process in
respect of all Anganwadis including the Anganwadies to which the
petitioners are presently supplying THR. The petitioners did not
participate in the said tender process.
9. In short, the bunch of Writ Petitions, challenging the
process of inviting tender for supply of THR across the State of
Maharashtra, was dismissed on merits. The self-help groups have
been held to have no preferential right to claim grant of contract to
supply THR. In the fresh tender process, the petitioners did not
participate. The Anganwadis to which the petitioners were supplying
THR were also covered by the fresh tender process. The petitioners'
contract for supply of THR to those Anganwadis came to an end on
31.08.2023. Pursuant to the interim order passed in this Writ Petition
dated 03.09.2024, the petitioners continued to supply THR. Since
the contract to supply THR to the Anganwadis to which the
petitioners were supplying the same, has come to an end and has,
now, been allotted to respondent no.5, the petition is devoid of
merit. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order
as to costs. Rule is discharged.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
