B.S.N.L. LTD. & ANR. versus BHUPENDER MINHAS & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 31-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 831 
h'-t 
B.S.N.L. LTD. & ANR. 
A 
, 
V. 
BHUPENDER MINHAS & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2283 of 2008) 
MARCH 31, 2008 
B 
.. 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
~ 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 & 19.· 
\ 
Notice inviting tenders - Restrictions on intending 
tenderers whose relatives are in employment of the Office - c 
Correctness of -
Held: Ultimate object of putting such 
restriction on intending tenderers is to avoid influence by the 
relatives working in the office in the decision making process 
- The conditions as also methodology noted by the Delhi High 
Court in the case of S.N. Engineering Work vs. MTNL Ltd. 
D 
~ 
need to be followed in future - Since correct principles of Jaw 
have not been kept in view by the High Court, the impugned 
judgment cannot be sustained. 
There is a disqualification clause contained in the E 
Notice inviting tender disentitling an intending tenderer 
to submit tender, whose near relative is working in any of 
the units of the appellant-BSNL. Respondents challenged 
such a prohibition by filing a writ petition before the High 
Court. The writ petitioners submitted that the ultimate 
intention of the appellant was to ensure that a person 
F 
~ ·~~ 
working in the unit would not be able to influence the 
' 
decision-making process in respect of the tender, the 
same is irrelevant if the person concerned is holding a 
post of Class Ill or Class IV. The petition was allowed by 
the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
G 
The appellant contended that the stipulation is 
~-,I. 
essentially a policy decision that too in a contractual matter 
and the High Court should not have interfered. 
831 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The ultimate objective appears to be that the 
official concerned should not be in a position to influence 
the decision-making process. Then the question would 
be whether a person belonging to Class Ill or Class IV 
B can be in a position to do so. It can certainly be provided 
that other things being equal, preference will be given to 
those whose relatives are not in employment in any unit. 
In the instant case the period for contract is stated to be 
over. The conditions as noted in a judgment* of the Delhi 
C High Court appear to be rational. The authorities can 
certainly consider the methodology indicated therein in 
future. So far as the present appeals are concerned, the 
High Court's decision cannot be sustained as correct 
principles have not been kept in view. But in the absence 
D of any order of stay, the appeals have become infructuous 
by passage of time. (Paras - 11 & 12) [837-H; 838-A-C] 
Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors., 
AIR (2000) SC 801 and Directorate of Education and Ors. vs. 
Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and Ors., AIR (2004) SC 1962 -
E referred to. 
*S.N. Engineering Works vs. Mahanagar Telephone 
Nigam Ltd. 1996 (37) DRJ446 - approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
F 2283 of 2008. 
G 
H 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2003 of 
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 122 of 2003. 
' 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2284, 2286 & 2287 of 2008, 
Ajit Singh Bawa, Arjun Singh Bawa and S. Thananjayan 
>- -
for the Appellants. 
' 
,.
B.S.N.L. LTD. & ANR. v. BHUPENDER MINHAS & 
833 
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
,...-.,. 
Madhu Moolchandani, Ashok K. Mahajan and T. Raja for A 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals involved identical issues. While two 
B 
~ 
~ 
appeals are against the judgment of the Himacbal Pradesh High 
Court, the other two are against the judgments of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court. 
3. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. Writ c 
petitions were filed by the respondents in each case questioning 
correctness of a stipulation in the "Notice Inviting Tender" (in 
short 'NIT) containing a disqualification clause which disentitled 
an intending tenderer to submit tender whose near relative is 
working in any of the units of the appellant-BSNL. According to D 
the writ-petitioners such a prohibition was impermissible. It was 
-~ 
submitted that if the ultimate intention was to ensure that a 
person working in the unit will not be able to influence the 
decision-making process in respect of the tender, the same is 
irrelevant if the person concerned is holding a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.