Renuka Mata Mahila Bachat Gat vs. State Of Maharashtra Thr Department Of Women And Child Development And Anr

Held

The Court held that the contention regarding the tender being vitiated due to being issued in English has no merit. The learned Advocate General rightly pointed out that once a centralized tender process is initiated, participation is not restricted to Maharashtra, and thus, the tender terms cannot be confined to the local language alone. The Court found that the State has the freedom to try new methods and technologies within the bounds of law to achieve the larger good and fulfill its statutory duty to improve nutrition outcomes. Experimentation with alternative solutions is permissible to reduce malnutrition rates and improve public health. The Court acknowledged that the Petitioners have no inherent legal right to insist on the distribution of Take Home Ration exclusively through their channels. The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned action of the State, recognizing the flexibility available to it in choosing the most efficient and results-oriented approach to meet the urgent health needs of children and mothers. Nutritional support to vulnerable populations is the paramount consideration. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the prayer to hold up the tender process further is rejected as it delays the benefits to the ultimate beneficiaries.

Facts

The petitioners, various Mahila Bachat Gats (Women Self-Help Groups), filed writ petitions challenging the tender process initiated by the State of Maharashtra for the supply of Take Home Ration under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. The petitioners argued that the tender process was vitiated because it was issued in English, contrary to statutory provisions and state policy. They also relied on the model adopted by the State of Delhi, where tenders are at a district level. The State contended that a centralized tender process allows participation from entities beyond Maharashtra and that the tender terms cannot be restricted to the local language. The State also highlighted that other states like Gujarat, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh have adopted similar centralized tender approaches, and the Jharkhand High Court upheld such conditions in a similar case. The primary concern for the State is addressing malnutrition, and strengthening the Take Home Ration program is necessary to achieve nutritional goals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender process initiated by the State of Maharashtra for the supply of Take Home Ration under the ICDS Scheme is vitiated due to being issued in English, contrary to statutory provisions and State policy? The Petitioners argued that the tender should have been in Marathi, aligning with state policy. The Revenue contended that a centralized tender process, open to entities beyond Maharashtra, necessitates the use of English, and restricting it to Marathi would be inappropriate. 2. Whether the State has the freedom to adopt a centralized tender methodology for procuring Take Home Ration, even if alternative approaches exist? The Petitioners relied on the Delhi model of district-level tenders. The Revenue argued that with the widening of eligible entities and the decentralization policy no longer being mandated, each state has the freedom to choose a methodology best suited to its needs, prioritizing nutritional goals and public good. The Revenue also pointed out that similar centralized tenders in other states have been upheld.