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 the respondents had invited fresh tenders through Re-tender E-NIT No. 11 of 2018. Faced with this development, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to participate in the new tendering process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to participate in the fresh tender process. It also directed the respondents to consider the fortification certificate issued by the competent authority, if required for the tendering process and if the petitioner qualified under the conditions laid down in the NIT. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original bid rejection or the validity of the petitioner's fortification authorization, as the petition was withdrawn.

Facts

M/s New Kissan Milk Foods (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a tender (e-NIT No. 03 of 2018) for the supply of Mustard Oil with Vitamin A & D. The rejection was based on the reason "Not Fortified as verified from Department of Agriculture Coop. JM." The petitioner argued it was authorized for fortification by the Food Fortification Resource Centre of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The respondents, represented by the State of J&K, had invited tenders for nutrition items for the ICDS project. During the proceedings, the respondents submitted a re-tender notice (E-NIT No. 11 of 2018). Faced with this, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition.

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, re-operationalised w.e.f. 19.04.2018? 2. Whether the petitioner's authorization from the Food Fortification Resource Centre of FSSAI was a valid basis for its bid? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that its technical bid was wrongly rejected as it possessed authorization from the FSSAI's Food Fortification Resource Centre, which is a competent authority. The rejection was contrary to the relevant Food Fortification Regulations. The petitioner sought to have its financial bid opened and evaluated, and the contract awarded to the lowest bidder only after its bid was considered. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted a re-tender notice (E-NIT No. 11 of 2018), indicating a fresh tendering process. The judgment does not explicitly record further arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's initial bid rejection.