Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals and a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 11.7.2016 of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) and order dated 15.3.2016 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The appellants, including Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat, questioned a tender notice dated 8.3.2016 issued by the State of Maharashtra for multilevel contract and supply of ready-to-cook food to Anganwadi Centres as supplementary nutritional food under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). The core issue was whether such contracts should be awarded to local Mahila Mandals (women's groups) and self-help groups, as directed by the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.196/2001), or whether the State could impose conditions that effectively excluded these groups in favour of large corporate entities. The appellants argued that the tender conditions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated the spirit of the PUCL decision, which mandated that contractors shall not be used for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and that ICDS funds should preferably be spent through village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals. They contended that the so-called Mahila Mandals applying under the tender were actually large industrial units with political connections, and that the unrealistic conditions made it impossible for genuine local groups to compete. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra, defended the tender. The Court examined the orders passed in PUCL v. Union of India from 2004 onwards, including directions to Chief Secretaries to submit affidavits on steps taken to implement the decentralization of nutrition supply. It also considered reports submitted by a court-appointed Commissioner in the PUCL case, which highlighted large-scale irregularities and violations in states like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Meghalaya, where contracts were given to entities that were not genuine Mahila Mandals. The Court noted that the National Food Security Act, 2013 aimed to reform the public distribution system and ensure food security. The Court held that the tender conditions imposed by the State were arbitrary and contrary to the directions of this Court. It emphasized that the State must ensure that contracts for supplementary nutrition under ICDS are awarded to genuine local women's groups and self-help groups, and not to large corporates or contractors. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgments and tender notices were set aside. The Court directed the State to re-issue tenders in conformity with the principles laid down in PUCL v. Union of India and the National Food Security Act, 2013.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - ICDS Supplementary Nutrition - The Court considered whether tender conditions for supply of food to Anganwadis under ICDS were arbitrary and contrary to the directions in PUCL v. Union of India that contractors shall not be used and preference shall be given to village communities, self-help groups and Mahila Mandals. Held that the State's tender conditions which effectively ousted local women's groups were unreasonable and violated the spirit of the earlier orders (Paras 2-4). B) Food Security - National Food Security Act, 2013 - Supplementary Nutrition - The Court examined the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the orders in PUCL v. Union of India requiring decentralization of nutrition supply through local communities. Held that the State must ensure that contracts are awarded to genuine Mahila Mandals and self-help groups, not to large corporates masquerading as such (Paras 6-11). C) Administrative Law - Tender Conditions - Arbitrariness - The Court analysed whether the tender conditions imposed by the State of Maharashtra were arbitrary and unreasonable. Held that conditions making it impossible for local Mahila Mandals to compete were arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of ICDS and the directions of this Court (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether contracts for supply of supplementary nutrition under ICDS should be awarded to local Mahila Mandals and self-help groups as directed by this Court in PUCL v. Union of India, or whether the State can impose tender conditions that effectively exclude such groups in favour of large corporate entities.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the tender notice dated 08.03.2016, and directed the State of Maharashtra to re-issue tenders in conformity with the principles laid down in PUCL v. Union of India and the National Food Security Act, 2013, ensuring that genuine Mahila Mandals and self-help groups are not excluded.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Integrated Child Development Scheme
- Supplementary Nutrition
- Contractual Tenders
- Mahila Mandals
- Self-Help Groups
- National Food Security Act
- 2013
- Arbitrariness
- Reasonableness
