MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD senior counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the intervener and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THIS claimed public interest litigation seeks to open a new front. It Is some sort of a quia timet action since what is asserted on behalf of the petitioner is that he was trying to prevent a wrong that he genuinely apprehends would affect public interest. The petitioner challenges a notice inviting tenders Equivalent issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of School Welfare, Women and Child Development. It is as part of a supplementary nutrition programme and the work tendered for is the supply of "Ready to Eat Energy Food (Poshahaar)" for the integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) projects in the State of Jharkhand. What is complained of is that the tender notification lacks clarity, prescribes qualifications which are unscientific and unnatural; that it is discriminatory and that it is just and proper to direct rectification of these defects now itself, so that future litigations arising out of the award of the contract could be avoided. The writ petition is, of course, opposed by the Advocate General, but the intervener seeks to support it and adds on his own that the confining of the supplies to powder form only, is unscientific and may itself pose a health hazard.

(3.) IT is pursuant to this that the State of Jharkhand has taken up the Scheme and iss 2ued 0/5/201t 4he Pa not ge 3ic 6 e inviting tenders in that behalf. In that notification, it is provided that the "Ready to Eat Energy Food (Poshahaar)" should be supplied in powder form, palatable, easily digestible and acceptable to children and the pregnant and lactating women and should not contain anything harmful to children and women. It also Equivalent stipulates the contents of the food articles and insists that after feeding the raw materials, the processing must be fully automatic till the packing of the finished products and there should be no human interaction in the process. Shelf life of the Energy Food should not be less than 90 days. As per the general terms and conditions -stipulated, the bidder should have an Energy Food manufacturing unit in the State of Jharkhand, or in a neighbouring State. The tenderer should have a turnover Energy Food of not less than Rs. 25 crores each year for the past two years. The bidder should have supplied Energy Food to any Government organization for at least one year during the previous three years. He should have at least two years experience in the production, processing and distribution of Energy Food. He should have to enclose a No Dues Certificate from the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2002 -2003 and also a certificate of registration from the Commercial Taxes/ Sales Tax Department of the Government of Jharkhand. He should show his licence for the manufacturing of Energy Food products, and a licence obtained under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also a valid factory licence. He should possess an ISO -9002 Certificate. He should have spare production capacity of 6880 metric tonne of Energy Foodper month. He should have In -house quality control facility. He should not have been convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the past 10 years and the bidder must be financially sound. He had also to produce along with the technical bid, the literature of the Energy Food to be produced, indication its composition, caloric value, protein, fat, vitamins and mineral contents. He must also produce the details of the process of production, mode of packing and other relevant details of the products along with two samples of the product duly analyzed, with a test report from one of the laboratories referred to in the notice. The Director, Social Welfare or any other officer authorized by the Director was entitled to inspect the production plant at any time and he would be free to get the raw materials or finished products analyzed and tested in any public laboratory or recognized laboratory. The right to inspect was not a restricted one and the goods could be rejected for want of quality even after the foods arrived at the destination.