SHAILENDRA NATH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred to quash Clause 1 of the Memorandum of Instructions (Annexure-2), issued by the respondent Bank for empanelment of vendors of paper, loose leaf binders, stationery items etc. and printers, whereby prohibition has been imposed on the empanelment of persons whose near relatives as defined therein are working in the Bank.

(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner is the sole proprietor of a firm of printers engaged in the business of printing since the year 1986, and empanelled as printers with the respondent Bank, Local Head Office, Patna, since 1994. An advertisement was published in the local Hindi newspaper "Hindustan" on 26-9-2004 (Annexure-1), inviting applications for empanelment of vendors of paper, stationary items, printers etc. within 15 days. The applicants were required to conform to the general terms and conditions governing the empanelment incorporated in the impugned Memorandum of Instructions (Annexure-2). Clause 1 is the impugned portion and is set out hereinbelow.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action is hit by Article 19 (6) of the Constitution, because such a restriction can be imposed by a legislation. The impugned order is a mere administrative instruction and restricts the petitioner's fundamental right to trade and business guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. He relied on the following reported judgments :- (i) AIR 1997 SC 637, Baliram Prasad Union of India. (ii) AIR 1989 Patna 68, Lal Babu Prasad v. State of Bihar & another, Paragraph 6. (iii) AIR 2004 Punjab & Haryana 156, Tarsem Singh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and etc., Paragraph 8. (iv) AIR 1992 Orissa 278, M/s. Maa Dakshinakali Animal Feeds v. State of Orissa and others, Paragraphs 7 and 9. He next submitted that the impugned order is per se bad in law, and has no nexus with any rational object to be achieved. He relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 188, M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Govt. and others (paragraph 13). The Bank is unable to control its internal affairs and outsiders like the petitioner cannot be prohibited. He next submitted that the Bank's circular marked Annexure-3 provides the detailed procedure for award of such contracts, ensures transparency of procedure and decision-making and, therefore, the impugned clause is redundant. He also submitted that the petitioner's brother is a mere Clerk in the Bank and is in no position to affect the decision-making of the Committee comprised of senior functionaries and are inaccessible to the petitioner's brother. He lastly submitted that the impugned circular bars the petitioner at the threshold, whereas another circular of the Bank of 5-3-2003 (Annexure R/A) does not bar the persons covered by the same at the preliminary stage. In other words, the petitioner alleges discriminatory treatment under similar circumstances.