Dismissed

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2024WP/20289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a tender by Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, arguing that a clause requiring three years of experience in supplying fortified rice kernels was arbitrary and unconstitutional, particularly as such supply began officially in 2022. The court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without costs. No direction to permit participation in the auction.

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

lo
^ V r»

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20289 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

KCP Nutrritious Pvt Ltd, Office 3t 6-18-285/1, New NGO Colony Nizamabad, Telangana Rep by its Director Mr. Kaparthi Shravan Kumar

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of Civil Supplies Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Guntur District.

¶12

Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, IV Floor,

¶13

H.No. 10-152/1, Kanuru, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal dated 30-08-2024 vide File NO.FCS51-16025/70/2024-PDS SECAPSCSCL for supply of Raw Fortified Rice Kernel issued by the 2nd Respondent to the extent it requires three years of past experience in

¶16

supplying fortified rice kernel as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) V* # of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct A the 2nd Respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the said auction without reference to clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction without reference to clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal issued vide File No.FCS51 -16025/70/2024-PDS SEC-APSCSCL, pending the disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P BADRINATH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P HEMA CHANDRA (SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP LTD)

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010398732024

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶25

AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3329]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 20289/2024

¶32

Between;

¶33

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt Ltd

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.P BADRINATH

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

P HEMA CHANDRA (SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP LTD)

¶42

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶43

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶44

The writ petition is filed for following relief;-

¶45

((if to issue a Writ order or direction one more particularlyⁱⁿ the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring clause 2^5of Request for Proposal dated 30082024 vide File NO FCS51 16025/70/2024PDS SEC-APSCSCLfor supply of Raw Fortified Rice Kernel issued by the 2nd Respondent to the extent it requires three years of past experience in supplying fortified rice kernel as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional^and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 1 g of the Constitution of India and set aside^thesame and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to permit^the petitioner to participate in the said auction without^reference

¶46

to clause 2. 5 of Request for Proposal and pass such^other order"

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the^learned

¶48

counsel for the respondents.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act and has experience in various varieties of rice processing, more particularly for exclusive production of fortified rice kernels. On 18.04.2022, the 2nd respondent issued a tender notice for the supply of fortified rice kernels throughout the State Targeted Public Distribution System under the National Food Security Act, 2013. Pursuant to the tender notice, the petitioner submitted his bid, having qualified in all respects. But to the surprise of petitioner, his tender was disqualified on 17.09.2024, stating the reason that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the terms^{andconditionsof} the tender notice, more particularly the precondition regarding the supply quantity of fortified rice kernels in respect of corrigendum (Zone-ll). The said disqualification of the 2'^^ respondent^{assailedinthe} present writ petition.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per Clause 2.5 of tender notice which indicates that minimum quantity supply of 4000 metric tons should have been any State^Governmentor Central Government or Public Undertakings during the immediate past

¶51

three years, the tender notice does not reveals about mention of fortified rice kernels. However, in the impugned rejection/disqu^alified order clarifies that this required quantity of fortified rice kernels should be supplied. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's tender is contrary to Clause 2.5 of the tender notice.

¶52

2.5. Experience- To be eligible to participate a minimum quantity of 2000 MTs of FRK to any State Government, Central Government, Public Sector Undertaking or State-owned Civil Supplies Corporation during the immediate past three financial years i.e., 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24.

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the supply of PDS rice with kernels only came into existence in the year 2022, in view of the notification issued by the Government of India, which applies exclusively to public distribution only. Therefore, the requirement for three years of experience and the supply^ofthesaid quantity within two years is contrary to the proceedings of the Government of India dated 18.04.2024. He also submits that the introduction of Clause 2.5 itself is contrary to the circular issued by the Central Government of India, and therefore the rejection of the petitioner's tender is contrary to the tender notice much less the circular of the Central Government. Hence the writ petition.

¶54

On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents furnished written instructions wherein it is stated that the petitioner place on record only tender notice leaving corrigendum which

¶55

was issued 06.09.2024 which clarified the nature of the rice required under Clause 2.5, wherein it is categorically and specifically^statedthat the supply of quantity required is in the form of fortified rice kernels only, therefore the petitioner does not have much experience and eligibility for the supply of fortified rice kernels.

¶56

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that fortified rice kernels were introduced in the year 2022, is not true and correct, as the project began as a private initiative/pilot project on 15.03.2019. Furthermore, he substantiates that other varieties of fortified rice kernels have been supplied to the poorer sections of the population since 2021-2022 across all districts. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that no one has prior experience of three years in the supply of fortified rice kernels cannot be accepted.

¶57

In view of the reasons stated above, the rejection of the petition cannot be found fault, as it is in accordance with the tender notice , as amended by the corrigendum dated 06.09.2024. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the tender process pursuant to the tender notice dated 30.08.2024. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶58

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO //TRUE COPY// ASSISTAN EGISTRAR To, sp 1. One CC to Sri P Badrinath Advocate vSE OFFICER [OPUC] High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. ^ [OUT]^^^ Supplies, 3. One CC to Sri P Hema Chandra SC for Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd., Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies

■/

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20289 of 2024

5f AND/y^;^^
X 2 7 JAN 2225 Co
^ . Current aecuon

¶67

DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. M.D. Sobjee, Automobile Engineering Works Vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust

Pereira English Noble School Vs the Regional Provident Fund

M/s. V.S.S. Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vantapalli Srinivas, Vs The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, A.P