M/S Sri Sharadhamba Foods vs. The Principal Secretary

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reasoning was based on the Apex Court's interim direction in W.P. No.196/2001, which clearly intended to encourage Village Communities, Self-Help Groups, and Mahila Mandals, and did not include private entrepreneurs as entities to be encouraged for supplying nutrition. The Court found that on this ground alone, the writ petition was liable to be rejected. Additionally, the Court noted that the impugned circular relied on a notification issued by the Central Government dated 24.02.2009, to which there was no challenge. The Court also observed that the petitioner's prayer was vague and referred to 'Part-II' of a notification without clarity. Furthermore, the Court expressed doubt about the petitioner's claim of running the business as asserted, citing the filing of nil GST returns for a significant period (April 2015 to March 2016, except January 2016) and the admitted lack of a BIS license. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned circular.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Sharadamba Foods, a partnership firm engaged in trading food articles, sought to supply raw materials for nutritional food under the Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production and Training Centres (MSPTC) scheme, implemented under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. The scheme, as per an Apex Court interim direction, aimed to encourage village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals for procurement and preparation of meals, discouraging the use of contractors. The petitioner, a private supplier, had submitted proposals but received no response. Subsequently, the respondents issued a circular dated 02.07.2020, stipulating that only Self-Help Groups possessing a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) license could associate with MSPTCs for supplying nutritional products, effectively excluding private suppliers like the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the circular was issued without providing an opportunity to obtain the required license.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned circular dated 02.07.2020, issued by the respondents, which mandates that only Self-Help Groups possessing a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) license can associate with MSPTCs for supplying nutritional products, is arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's right to livelihood, especially when no opportunity was granted to obtain such a license? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents ought to have provided a reasonable time for entities like the petitioner to apply for and obtain the BIS license before issuing the circular, which has effectively deprived them of their livelihood. They also implied that private suppliers were previously allowed to participate. Respondents' Contention: The respondents relied on the Apex Court's interim direction which emphasized encouraging village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals, and did not mention private entrepreneurs. They also pointed to a Central Government notification dated 24.02.2009, which was not challenged by the petitioner, and argued that the scheme is centrally sponsored, requiring adherence to Central Government instructions.