Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri.Sharadhamba Foods vs The Principal Secretary on 21 January, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.580 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S SRI.SHARADHAMBA FOODS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.03, SHIRI KRISHNA NILAYA
NEAR CANARA BANK, GUDDENAHALLI ROAD
BELUR MAIN ROAD, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER:
MRS.KATTIMANI MANAVWA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:AKASH R.RAO, ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE AT: 1ST FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT
2
OFFICE AT: 1ST FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT:VANI H., AGA FOR R1 TO R2 (PH))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2020
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.8799 OF 2020 (GM-RES) AND TO CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND TO FURTHER QUASH THE
GUIDELINES DATED 02/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
M.G.UMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of order dated
24/08/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.8799 of 2020 by
the learned Single Judge, is assailed in this writ appeal.
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant
sought quashing of the Circular dated 02/07/2020
(Annexure-A) issued by the respondents. As per this
Circular, respondents have stipulated that only those Self
Help Groups who possess licence issued by the Bureau of
Indian Standards alone would be able to associate with
Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production and Training
Centres (MSPTC) for the purpose of supply of nutritional
products to eradicate mal-nutrition amongst beneficiaries
of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)
programme for providing supplementary nutrition food as
per the guidelines issued there under. The Circular refers
to the order dated 07/10/2004 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court for procuring the raw materials required for
preparation of Supplementary Nutrition Food to be
produced through Self Help Groups, Mahila Mandals and
Village Communities. Accordingly, guidelines dated
24/02/2009 was issued by the Central Government to
provide Micro Nutrients Fortified Food to the beneficiaries
of Anganawadi Workers' Centres (AWCs).
3. The grievance of the appellant herein is that it
is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in
various food articles and intended to supply food products
under MSPTC which is tagged to ICDS. In view of the
Circular Annexure-A, the appellant will not be eligible to
supply food materials under the Scheme. Therefore,
Annexure-A is sought to be quashed.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the
contention of the appellant and held that the appellant do
not possess the licence issued by the Bureau of Indian
Standards and that in the Circular Annexure-A, there is a
clear reference to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
along with Notification and instructions issued by the
Central Government. The Circular states that the
stipulation are in confirmation to the standard and
instructions issued by the Central Government and the
same has to be followed, as it is a Central Sponsored
Scheme. Annexure-A also placed reliance on the
Notification issued by the Central Government dated
24/02/2009 and the same has not been challenged.
Therefore, the writ petition came to be rejected.
5. We have heard Sri.Akash R.Rao, learned
counsel for the appellant and Smt.H.Vani, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and
2 on advance notice and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that he was supplying food materials to MSPTC since
several years and in view of this Circular dated
02/07/2020 (Annexure-A), his right to trade is taken away
and therefore, the same has to be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that the Central Government has
sponsored the Scheme for a specific purpose, namely, to
provide nutritious food to the beneficiaries of ICDS
programme and the Circular in question is issued in terms
of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on 07/10/2004 and the guidelines dated 24/02/2009
issued by the Central Government and therefore, the same
cannot be found fault with.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.196 of 2001 (People's Union for Civil
Liberties Vs Union of India and Others) considered the
report of the Commissioner which was placed on record. It
elaborately discussed about the background with which
ICD Scheme is initiated. The Apex Court, after considering
that the food being supplied to the children through
Anganawadi Centres, issued specific direction to do away
with the problem of using contractors for procurement
which has been mentioned in the report and expecting that
it should be done by the agency and the officers at the
Government level.
9. We have considered the rival submissions of
the learned counsel and we do not find any merit in the
contention raised by the appellant regarding the Circular.
Admittedly, the guidelines dated 24/02/2009 issued by the
Central Government for implementation of the Scheme is
not challenged by the appellant. He does not also have
any grievance with regard to the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07/10/2004.
Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this
appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
