JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri A.N. Rai appears for respondent No. 11. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 9.11.2012 awarding contract to M/s. Ashok Kumar Lata Ten House Plastic Complex Basti-respondent No. 11 for supplying cooked food under the 'Janani Shishu Suraksha Yojna' on the ground that the scheme provides for supplying cooked food, whereas the respondent No. 11 has licence under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 for doing petty food business in food material/drinking material.
(2.)On 10.5.2013 we passed following orders:
17.12.2012 we had passed following orders:
Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6; 8 to 10, and 12. Sri Hemendra Kumar Mishra has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 7. Sri S.R. Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 11.
The petitioner submitted his tender, in response to the notice for contract, issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti published on 12.8.2012, for supply of cooked food, and other items in 'Janani Shishu Suraksha Yojna', and in other schemes of the State, for maternity care.
It is alleged that the contract was settled with respondent No. 11 by a committee, which was not properly constituted, and further respondent No. 11 does not have a licence, for sale and supply of 'cooked food' under the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006.
All the respondents are allowed two weeks time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit.
List on 29.1.2013.
The Standing Counsel has filed counter-affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar, District Administrative Officer in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Basti, in which it is not denied that respondent No. 11, who has been awarded contract for supply of cooked food in the "Janani Shishu Suraksha Yojna" does not have a valid licence for cooked food under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit all that is stated is that the respondent No. 11 was required to comply with conditions of the tender and which require, that the registration certificate is issued under and is subject to the provisions of FSS Act, 2006, all of which must be complied with by the petty food business.
The respondent No. 11 is represented through Shri S.R. Pandey, Advocate. He has not filed counter-affidavit so far.
Prima facie, we find that the respondent No. 11, who has been awarded the contract for supplying 'cooked food', does not have a licence under Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 for supplying 'cooked food'. His licence is admittedly issued for supplying 'food items/drinking items' (Khadya Padarth Evam Pey Padarth) for which the licence is valid upto 29.6.2013.
A person, who does not hold a licence from the competent authority in the business in which he has offered his bid, was not entitled for settlement of contract to supply of such items, as the supply would be contrary to the provisions of Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006.
Shri S.R. Pandey is allowed two weeks' further time to file counter-affidavit. List on 28.5.2013.
Until 28th May, 2013 the respondents are restrained from accepting supplies and making payments to respondent No. 11.
(3.)A counter-affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar, District Administrative Officer in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Basti has been filed justifying the award of contract to respondent No. 11 on the ground that in Clause-4 of the licence issued by the Food Registering Authority, Nagar Palika Pari shad, Basti it has been specifically mentioned that this registration certificate is issued under and is subject to the provisions of FSS Act, 2006 all of which must be complied with by the petty food business. The tenders were invited from the interested and eligible candidates under conditions laid down in paragraphs 3(c) and 5(d) for supply of food in the hospitals. In the conditions of the tender, the details of classification of license have not been demanded and in view of this it cannot be said that the licence granted to respondent No. 11 has been disapproved. It is further stated in para-7 that Clause-4 of the food licence issued to respondent No. 11 alongwith other persons specifies that this registration certificate is issued under and is subject to the provisions of FSS Act, 2006 all of which must be complied with by the petty food business.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.