M/S New Kissan Milk Food Th. Vinod Grover vs. State Of J And K Th. Commissioner Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. And Ors

Held

The Court noted that a re-tender (E-NIT No. 11 of 2018) had been issued by the State Mission Director ICDS J&K. Faced with this development, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to participate in the fresh tendering process. The Court, in light of this request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to participate in the fresh tender. The Court also directed that in case the petitioner participates in the fresh tender process, the respondents shall consider the fortification certificate issued by the competent authority, provided it is required for the tendering process and meets the conditions laid down in the NIT. No specific finding was made on the merits of the fortification authorization or the rejection of the original bid.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Kissan Milk Foods, a small-scale enterprise, submitted a technical bid for supplying Mustard Oil with Vitamin A & D pursuant to E-Nit No. 04 of 2018. The bid was initially admitted but later rejected via an e-mail dated July 23, 2018, by Respondent No. 2, citing the reason 'Not Fortified as verified from Department of Agriculture Coop. JM'. The petitioner sought to quash this communication, compel the opening of their financial bid, and prevent the contract from being awarded until their bid was evaluated. The petitioner contended they were authorized for fortification by the Food Fortification Resource Centre of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Subsequently, a re-tender (E-NIT No. 11 of 2018) was issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for Mustard Oil with Vitamin A & D was arbitrary and contrary to the Food Safety and Standards Act (Fortification of Foods Regulations) 2016, given the petitioner's authorization from FSSAI? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their bid was wrongly rejected as they possessed authorization from the Food Fortification Resource Centre, a competent authority under FSSAI, for fortifying Mustard Oil. They contended that this authorization was submitted with their tender documents and should have been considered. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through the communication dated July 23, 2018, indicated that the bid was rejected based on verification from the Department of Agriculture Cooperation, Jammu, which stated that no unit in J&K was allowed to produce double fortified Mustard Oil. They also sought clarification from the petitioner regarding their authorization.