Disposed¶6

Harihareshwara Mahila Udyog Matthu Seva Sangha Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Gopal Dvivedi v. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, Thru. Its M.D. New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2026WRIC/2305/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-C 2305 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; territorial jurisdiction writ tender challenge; preliminary objection rejected; ICDS recipe based supplementary nutrition food tender 2026-27; NAFED eligibility criteria own manufacturing unit U.P.; 20% supply reservation; Article 14 discrimination; State of U.P. benefit accrual; counter affidavit ten days; listed 9.3.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory order only: preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction rejected; counter affidavit directed to be filed within ten days; petition listed on 9.3.2026 in top ten cases. The Article 14 challenge to the tender conditions remains undecided. ¶6

Harihareshwara Mahila Udyog Matthu Seva Sangha Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Gopal Dvivedi vs National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, Thru. Its M.D. New Delhi and 2 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2305 of 2026

¶3

Harihareshwara Mahila Udyog Matthu Seva Sangha Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Gopal Dvivedi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation Of India, Thru. Its M.D. New Delhi And 2 Ors

¶7

2 Ors .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Paavan Awasthi, Bhanu Bajpai, Mohd. Ashad Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vijyant Nigam, C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Paavan Awasthi for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 2 and 3 and Sri Vijyant Nigam on behalf of opposite party No.1.

¶11

Challenge in the present writ petition has been made to the tender issued by opposite party No.1 for supply of recipe based supplementary nutrition food items at the behest of State of U.P. for the financial year 2026-27 under Integrated Chief Development Services (ICDS) Scheme.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the terms and conditions of the said tender, specifically the provisions and the eligibility criteria for bidders at serial No.1 which provides that the bidder should have own manufacturing unit of recipe based supplementary nutrition food in State of U.P. and they would also provide ownership details. While on the other hand, it is stated that twenty percent of the supply has been reserved to be made by respondent No.1 for whom similar conditions has been diluted which, according to the petitioner, is evident from clause B. Scope of Work and 5. b) where NAFED which does not have any plant in the State of U.P. and is under the process of installing its plant have been permitted to participate in the said tender and supply the goods to the State of U.P. According to the petitioner such a condition, on the face of it, is discriminatory and two clauses have been made in similar ways and are illegal as well as violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection

¶14

WRIC No. 2305 of 2026

¶15

¶16

with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition in as much as the advertisement has been filed by opposite parry No.1 which is in New Delhi and submits that only the court at New Delhi would have jurisdiction.

¶17

Considering the rival contentions undoubtedly there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the supplies as per the provisions are to be made in the State of U.P. and the said tender also has been issued at the behest of Government of Uttar Pradesh by Integrated Child Development Services through its Director which is also an agency of the State of U.P. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that even though advertisement has been issued at Delhi the entire corpus of benefit of the tender would accrue to the State of U.P. and certainly this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction is rejected.

¶18

Let counter affidavit be filed within next ten days.

¶19

List on 9.3.2026 in top ten cases.

¶20

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶21

February 27, 2026

¶22

RKM/A. Verma

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harihareshwara Mahila Udyog Matthu Seva Sangha Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Gopal Dvivedi v. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, Thru. Its M.D. New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihareshwara Mahila Udyog Matthu Seva Sangha Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Gopal Dvivedi v. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, Thru. Its M.D. New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Badkannu @ Mohd. Juver vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 13 Others

Indrapal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Dr. K.C. Memorial Gupta Hospital HOSP9P00873 Amroha Thru. Director Dr. Abhishek Jain vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 7 Others

Windsor Cables Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Mahesh Sharma vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways New Delhi and 2 Others

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Ramendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others