BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANR. versus LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1218 · Decided: 01-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1218 
A 
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT 
UNDERTAKING AND ANR. 
v. 
LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2009) 
B 
DECEMBER 01, 2009 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND .! .M. 
PANCHAL, JJ.] 
.\>-
c 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: s.460M..:. 
Mumbai Transformation Project - Beautification of bus 
shelters in the city of Mumbai - First Finder Scheme - Failure 
of - Mumbai Transformation Project required urgent attention 
and timely completion of work - Respondent 4 and 5 having 
0 
existing agreement with Administration for display of 
~ 
advertisement in bus shelters - Award of work order/contract 
for erection of Bus Queue shelters to respondent 4 and 5 
without resorting to public tender - Challenged - High Court 
set aside the work order and directed invitation of fresh tenders 
E - On appeal, held: Generally disposal of public properties 
owned by the State or its instrumentalities should be by public 
auction or by inviting tenders - Proviso to sub-section (2) of 
s. 460M enables General Manager to deviate the process of 
-'-
inviting tenders subject to reasons duly recorded by the 
F Administration Committee - Empowered Committee of 
Administration consisting of Chief Secretary and other senior 
officers of various departments after taking relevant aspects 
authorized the General Manager to finalise the work with 
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - By this contract with Respondent 
G Nos. 4 and 5, the administration was assured of not only 
regular revenue but also better facilities to the general public 
9s well - Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were continuing the 
~
c9ntract work throughout during the pendency of the 
proc;eediryg - To render substantial justice, continuation of 
H 
1218" 
• 
\ 
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS. 
1219 
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. 
contract with the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is the only A 
acceptable solution - Impugned order of the High Court 
modified and the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 directed to adhere 
to the terms of contract strictly - Tender. 
Interpretation of statutes: Heading/marginal notes in a 8 
particular section - Lends assistance in interpreting the 
statutory intent. 
In 2005, BEST allotted tender for contracts of sole 
agency for advertisement rights on Bus Queue Shetters 
(BQS) in Brihan Mumbai for the period 2005-2008 in C 
favour of respondent 4 and 5. The said contract was for 
a period of three years which was to expire on 31.12.2008 
with an option for extension of one year till 31.12.2009. 
In December, 2006, BEST floated offer document for o 
'y 
erection of BQS in place of existing Bus Stop Poles, 
i 
· 
maintenance of the same and display of advertisement 
,, 
~~ 
thereon under First Finder Scheme, whereby interested 
parties were invited to choose and select Bus Queue 
Poles in the city of Mumbai, as per their liking. The E 
response was poor under the Scheme. The First Finder 
Scheme was a complete failure as only 1/3rd poles were 
taken. In such a situation, the earlier tender contract of 
7' 
2005 in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was extended 
on the terms and conditions of the Scheme in order to 
include all those bus shelters which were allotted to them F 
for the display of advertisements. By this extension or 
new contract, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were required to 
construct new and modernized bus shelters in the entire 
city of Mumbai. The said decision was taken pursuant to 
the Mumbai Transformation Project undertaken by the G 
Empowered Committee meeting held on 02.09.2006. 
- " 
Respondent 1 and 2 were also bidd.::rs for the Scheme 
and had selected 22 bus stops under the Scheme. It was 
their grievance that BEST favoured respondent 4 and 5 
H 
I 
1220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A by granting them a long extension and new benefits 
under the original tender; that the action of the authorities 
for extension of the work orders without issuing tenders 
was arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, ma/a fide, contrary 
to the terms of the tender and violation of the 
B fundamental rights and hence, they prayed for 
appropriate directions by way of writ of mandamus. 
High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the 
work orders/contracts awarded to respondent 4 and 5 
and directed BEST to invite fresh tenders as required 
C under Section 460M of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 
1888. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
appeal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.