Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Micro Enterprise and its founder, challenged the legality of minimum turnover clauses in government tenders that prevented their participation, arguing that such clauses violate the MSMED Act and the Procurement Order 2012, which mandates 25% procurement from MSEs. The Supreme Court examined the legal status of the Procurement Order 2012 and held that it has the force of law, imposing enforceable duties on statutory authorities. The Court also addressed the proportionality of minimum turnover clauses, noting that they must have a rational nexus with the procurement objective. The Court issued directions for effective implementation of the Procurement Order, including strengthening the Review Committee and Grievance Cell. The petition was disposed of with directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Procurement - Minimum Turnover Clauses - Articles 14, 19 of the Constitution of India - The court examined whether mandatory minimum turnover clauses in tenders are arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. Held that such clauses must have a rational nexus with the object of procurement and must be proportionate; otherwise, they may be struck down. (Paras 1-10)
B) MSME Law - Public Procurement Policy - Enforceability - Section 11 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 2012 - The court held that the Procurement Order 2012 has the force of law and is enforceable. While it does not create an individual enforceable right, statutory authorities have enforceable duties subject to judicial review. (Paras 1-1.1)
C) MSME Law - Procurement Preference - 25% Mandate - Section 11 of MSMED Act, 2006 - Procurement Order 2012 - The court considered whether the government is mandated to procure 25% of goods and services from MSEs. Held that the mandate is binding and authorities must ensure compliance, with institutional mechanisms like Review Committee and Grievance Cell to be effectively implemented. (Paras 1-1.2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the MSMED Act and Procurement Order 2012 create enforceable rights for MSEs and whether minimum turnover clauses in NITs are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Procurement Order 2012 has the force of law and is enforceable. It issued directions for effective implementation, including strengthening the Review Committee and Grievance Cell. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Law Points
- Public Procurement Policy has force of law
- enforceable duties on statutory authorities
- judicial review of procurement policies
- minimum turnover clauses must be proportionate
- MSEs entitled to 25% procurement preference
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (2) 254
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020 (assumed)
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
V. Giri, K. M. Natraj, Vanshaja Shukla
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha (Judge) - Not mentioned
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions regarding procurement from MSEs and challenging minimum turnover clauses.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought directions to consider bids of MSEs irrespective of minimum turnover clauses, quash NITs contrary to the 2012 Policy, and direct withdrawal of orders rejecting their bid.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, a Micro Enterprise and its founder, were disqualified from participating in government tenders due to mandatory minimum turnover clauses, which they argued violate the MSMED Act and Procurement Order 2012.
Previous Decisions
A previous writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a similar NIT was dismissed on 05.04.2017. A Special Leave Petition against that order is pending before the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the MSMED Act and Procurement Order 2012 mandate 25% procurement from MSEs and create enforceable rights.
Whether minimum turnover clauses in NITs are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that minimum turnover clauses are arbitrary, lack rational nexus with procurement objectives, and violate the Procurement Order 2012.
Respondents argued that the policy has been complied with, and the tender conditions are contractual, not subject to judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The Procurement Order 2012 has the force of law and imposes enforceable duties on statutory authorities. Minimum turnover clauses must be proportionate and have a rational nexus with the procurement objective. Judicial review is available to ensure compliance with statutory duties.
Judgment Excerpts
Having examined the legal regime concerning the promotion and development of MSEs, we have come to the conclusion that the Procurement Order 2012 has the force of law and is enforceable.
While the Act and the Procurement Order 2012 do not create an 'enforceable right' for an individual MSE, the statutory authorities and administrative bodies created thereunder are impressed with enforceable duties.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 2017 challenging an NIT, which was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition against that order is pending. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court seeking wider directions.
Acts & Sections
- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006: Section 7, Section 11
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 19, Article 32
