The Supreme Court has taken action on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Mukhya Mantri Annadoot Yojna,' a program implemented by the Madhya Pradesh government to allocate transportation work to unemployed individuals.

A bench consisting of Justice Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha has given attention to this issue.

According to the petition, before the said Scheme was implimented, the transportation of supplies was allotted by way of a tender process wherein the lowest bidder was allotted the work based on the quoted rates.

For the period of 2021-2023, the petitioners were awarded the transportation contract through the tender process. The contract involved transporting supplies from the warehouse to fair price shops.

However, the respondents introduced the contested 'Mukhya Mantri Annadoot Yojna' for the transportation of supplies, replacing the existing policy where contracts were granted to the petitioners through a competitive tendering process. This has made the petitioners ineligible to even apply for the work that they have been handling for over a decade. Therefore, in this Special Leave Petition (SLP), the petitioners have put forth the following arguments

“By virtue of Scheme, the Petitioners are barred to even apply for allotment of work for the reason that eligibility criteria are determined on the basis of age and place of residence having absolutely no nexus with the nature of work. Such classification amounts to hostile discrimination on the basis of place of residence and age, making the impugned Scheme violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

“The impugned Scheme abrogates not only the Petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India but also right of occupation of the employees, staff, drivers, and laborers employed and engaged in the work of transportation for several years.”, the petition stated.

''It is contrary to the public interest as not only it stipulates to outsource the State's work without following the fair and transparent process of issuing Notice inviting tender to the public but also incurs more burden on public exchequer as same work is being allotted on much higher rate.”

During the course of hearing, the petitioners have argued that in the aforementioned judgment, the High Court summarily rejected their Writ Petitions without providing a proper hearing. They contend that the High Court did not adequately consider the challenges raised against the Scheme and the grounds presented, which clearly illustrate that the Scheme is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and contrary to public policy.

The High Court, without a thorough examination of the Scheme, mechanically dismissed the Writ Petitions, asserting that it is a policy decision that cannot be legally contested.

“The impugned order blindly and mechanically holding the impugned action of the State Government inalienable is detrimental to the Constitutional framework. Further, by such order, the executive in power will be encouraged to replace the existing fair Tender process in every outsourcing public work with its own suitable allotment process in order to confer benefit to its own chosen ones leading to more abuse of official power and corruption as indicated in the order passed by Hon'ble Single Bench staying the Scheme.”, the petition stated.

Case Title: M/S OM SAI TRANSPORT SERVICES & ORS ETC v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS