Holding

The proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 460M permits the BEST Committee to authorize the General Manager to award a contract without public tender, provided the reasons are recorded, making the award to respondents 4 and 5 valid.

Summary

The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) awarded contracts to Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and Prithvi Associates for the modernization of bus queue shelters without inviting a fresh public tender, invoking the proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 460M of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd. and Alok Jalan challenged the award, arguing that the statutory requirement of public tender was breached. The High Court set aside the contracts and directed fresh tenders. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the proviso authorises the BEST Committee to permit the General Manager to award a contract without tender, provided reasons are recorded, and that the award to the two firms was valid and necessary for the Mumbai Transformation Project. Consequently, the High Court’s order was modified and the contracts were to be adhered to. The Court emphasized the interpretative value of statutory headings and affirmed that deviation from tendering is permissible in exceptional cases with proper justification.

Issues considered

Whether BEST was justified in awarding work orders to respondents 4 and 5 without resorting to a public tender.
Whether the proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 460M of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 enables BEST to award contracts without inviting tenders.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the work orders and directing BEST to invite fresh tenders.

Legislation cited

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888s. 460A, s. 460K, s. 460L, s. 460M

Subjects

public tenderSection 460MMumbai Municipal Corporation Actcontract award without tenderstate-owned propertybus shelter modernizationstatutory interpretationheading and marginal notes

Judgment

[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
Nos. 4 and 5, the administration was assured of not only
G
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
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 J-
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
appeals were whether the appellants were justified in
D awarding wor.k order/contract in favour of respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 without resorting to public tender; whether
. I proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 460M of the Act >
· enables the BEST to award contract without inviting
tenders; whether the High Court was justified in setting
E aside the work order/contract to respondent Nos. 4 and
5 and in directing BEST to invite fresh tenders as required
under sub-section (1) of Section 460M of the Act.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court ),...

F HELD: 1. A reading of Section 460M of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act makes it clear that the General
Manager is the ultimate authority in all respects including
maintenance, operation, administration and development
of the BEST. Sub-section (1) of Section 460M makes it
G clear that for execution of any work or the supply of any
materials or goods which involve an expenditure
exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the General Manager is ,.--.
mandated to give notice by advertisement in the local
newspapers inviting tenders for such contract. However,
I

H
"
A

BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS. 1221
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD.

.
......... -+
proviso to sub-section (2) enables the BEST Committee A
to authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract
without inviting tenders as provided in sub-section (1} or
without accepting any tender which he may receive after
having invited them. The only condition is that the BEST
"~
Committee has to specifically authorize the General B
Manager and reasQns for deviating for inviting tender are
to be recorded in writing before such authorization. [Para
15] [1237 -A-D]
~
2. The Heading of Section 460M reads "Tenders to c
be invited for contracts involving expenditure exceeding
, rupees fifty thousand". Though heading in a particular
~
section normally is not a part of the statutory provision,
~
'
'
it lends assistance in interpreting the statutory intent
since it serves as a guide to depict the intention. The D
heading/marginal notes, prima facie, furnish some clue as
'!
1 to the meaning and purpose of the section. In the light
..... of these principles, the 'heading' of 460M has some
bearing while construing the sub-sections (1) and (2)
therein. [Para 16] [1237-E-F: 1238-C-F] E
(
Industrial Finance Corporationcf India Ltd. v. Cannanore
Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Ors. -(2002) 5 SCC 54;
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a & Ors.
-)
(2001} 5 SCC 175; K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer,
Ernakulam & Anr. (1981) 4 SCC 173; Madhav Rao Jivaji F
'-
Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85; British
Airways PLC v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 95;
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke
& Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 705, relied on.
G
3.1. The public property owned by the State or by any
instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by
-"" public auction or by inviting tenders. This rule is insisted
not only to get the highest price for the property but also
to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public H
1222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A authorities. The authority should justify the action
assailed on the touchstone of justness, fairness, -t-· ......•'
reasonableness and as a reasonable prudent owner.
Sub-section (1) of Section 460M makes it clear that the
General Manager is one who authorized to manage and . .-,_
B perform all acts necessary for efficient maintenance,
operation, development and administration of the BESi.
It also emphasizes that in all action or execution of any ~
work including supply of materials or goods ~hich
exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the General Manager is .Ir
c bound to give notice by advertisement in the local
newspaper inviting tenders for such work orders/ l
r...
contracts. [Para 17 and 18] (1239-0-H; 1240-A)
~
Mahesh Chandra v. Ragional Manager, U.P. Financial
D Corporation & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 279; Haryana Financial
Corporation & Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr. (2002) 3 ~
sec 496; Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana & ~

Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 267; Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem ,..
Meat Exports (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 382; Reliance Energy
E Ltd. & Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 1; M.I. Builders Pvt. ~--

Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 464;
Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. New Delhi
Municipal Council (2007) 8 sec 75; Sterling Computers Ltd. .~

F= v. Mis M & N Publications Ltd. (1993) 1 SCC 445, relied on.

3.2. It is not in dispute that the 'First Finder Scheme'
was introduced in December, 2006 whereby interested
parties were invited to choose and select Bus Queue
Poles in the city of Mumbai as per their liking for the
G purpose of converting them into modernized Bus Queue
Shelters and display of advertisements thereon. It was
pointed out that approximately only 1/3rd of the poles
could be allotted for conversion into shelters. BEST
administration wanted to implement the Mumbai
H Transformation Project at the earliest an~ the initial work
-
(

BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS. 1223
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD.
under the 'First Finder Scheme' was not fully successful A
as estimated. The initial tender contract awarded to
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was up to 31.12.2008 and
extendable for a period of one year. However, it was only
for display of advertisement in the Bus Queue Shelters
and not the construction of any Bus Queue Shelters. The B
Mumbai Beautification Project was envisaged on
02.09.2006 under which one of the resolutions was to
beautify all the bus shelters in the city of Mumbai. As part
of the said project, BEST came up with the Scheme in
December, 2006. The main grievance of the BEST was c
that there was no proper response in respect of non-
saleable bus shelters, hence BEST administration on
27 .12.2006, decided that in order to implement the
Mumbai Transformation Project and ensure uniformity in
the modernization process of BQS and bus queue poles
0
in the city of Mumbai, it was agreed that the Scheme
should be extended to respondent 4 and 5. The said
Meeting was attended by the Chairman as well as the
General Manager of the BEST. The item no.356 dated
27 .12.2006 clearly records suggestion made by both the E
General Manager and the Chairman of the BEST to
initiate dialogue and negotiations with respondent 4 and
5 for the purpose of modernization of the BQS who were
using the same for displaying advertisement under the
2005 contract, there is no procedural illegality and
violation of any statutory provisions. [Paras 18 and 21] F
[1240-C-F; 1246-G-H; 1247-A-D]

4. Calling for tenders is a rule and finalizing any
contract without inviting tenders as provided in sub-
section (1} is an exception. It is true that by entering into G
a contract with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the BEST
administration has not lost its title over the property, but
on the other hand assured of getting regular income
without any financial implications apart from providing
better facilities for the public. The entire note placed H
1224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A before the Committee for discussion disclosed reasons
r
for not adhering to public tender and entering into a
+ <:
contract with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alone. The "Note" •
also discloses that thorough discussion was held among
the members of the Committee, General Manager and ~-
B Chairman. There was no sale or element of sale in the ,1
.,_
impugned transaction. However, to ensure fairness in the
activities of the State and public authorities, their dealing
should be above board. Nothing should be done by the
public authorities which gives an impression of bias,
c favoritism and ordinarily these factors would be absent -~
if the r_natter is brought to public auction by inviting
tenders. In exceptional cases having regard to the nature
of the.trade or largesse or for some other good reason, ~
a contract may have to be granted by private negotiation,
but clearly that should not be done without adequate
D
reasons as it shakes the public confidence. In the case
on hand, in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 'Y
460M,· BEST Committee after due deliberation authorized "
the General Manager to enter into contract without
inviting tenders, since it was beneficial to the BEST and
E general' public. (Paras 23 and 24] (1243-F-H; 1249-A-D]
'.•
r-

5. Even during the hearing before the High Court it
I
;,.
.
was submitted that pursuant to the contract, Respondent
No. 4 constructed about 1/3rd of the total Bus Queue
.i...
·-
F Shelters allotted to it and Respondent Nos. 5 constructed
about 40% of the Bus Queue Shelters allotted to it. This
was the position prior to November, 2008. On 19.11.200~,
the High Court while passing orders at the request of
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, suspended its order for a
G period of eight weeks a·nd this Court while ordering
...
notice on 13.01.2009, extended the order of stay. Though
on equity, they cannot have better claim, but the fact
remains that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were continuing ~
the contract work throughout during the pendency of the
H proceeding before the High Court and in this Court.
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS. 1225
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD.

Taking note of all these aspects and peculiar position and A
• --+
in order to render substantial and complete justice to the
parties, continuation of the contract by BEST with the
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is the only acceptable solution.
The impugned order of the High Court is modified and
the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to adhere to B
the terms of contract strictly. [Paras 27 and 28] [1250-F-
H; 1251-A-C]
Case Law Reference:
(2002) 5 sec 54 relied on Para 16 c
(2001) 5 sec 115 relied on Para 16
(1981) 4 sec 113 relied on Para 16
-
(1971) 1 sec 85 relied on Para 16
D
(2002) 2 sec 95 relied on Para 16
(2001) 8 sec 105 relied on Para 16
(1993) 2 sec 219 relied on Para 17
E
(2002) 3 sec relied on Para 17
(1985) 3 sec 267 relied on Para 17
(2006) 13 sec 382 relied on Para 17
(2001) 8 sec 1 relied on Para 17 F

(1999) s sec 464 relied on Para 17
(2001) 8 sec 75 relied on Para 17
(1993) 1 sec 445 relied on Para 17 G

... .... CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .
7907 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 19; 11.2008 of the High
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2007. H
1226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A WITH
+-
C.A. Nos. 7908 & 7909 of 2009.

G.E. Vahanvati, Attornery General for India, Harish N.
Salve, K.K. Venugopal Mukul Rohtagi, Pravin, H. Parekh,
B Krishan Kumar, M.T. Nair, Mukesh Kumar, Mohd. Yasir Abbasi
(for M.V. Kini & Associates), Maninder Singh, Pratibha M.
Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Kamaldeep Dayal, Sumeet Bhatia,
Surbhi Mehta, K. Datta, Manish Srivastava, Sudhir Nandrajog,
.I\
Ramesh P. Yadav, Pooja Dhar, Ashish Verma, Sameer
c Parekh, Sumeet Lall, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Shakun Sharma,
Yashodhara Anand, Deekhsha Rai, Ashish Vaid (for Parekh &
Co.) Sameer Parekh, Asha G. Nair (NP) for the appearing
parties.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. All these appeals are directed against the final order
and judgment dated 19.11.2008 passed by the High Court of
E Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2007
whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by
Laqshya Media Private Limited and Alok Jalan of Mumbai and
set aside the work orders/contracts awarded to Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd.- Respondent No. 4 and Prithvi Associates- ·"-

F Respondent No. 5 by the Brihan Mumbai Electf.fc Supply &
Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the "BEST")
in respect of Bus Queue Shelters and directed the BEST to
invite fresh tenders as required under Section 4601\1. of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short "~~;v'IC Act").
G Aggrieved by the said order, the BES·1 has filed S.L.P .(C) No.
363 of 2009, Prithvi Associates has filed S.L.P.(C) No. 426 of
2009 and Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. has filed S.L.P. (C) No. y-
510 of 2009. Since all the appeals question the correctness of
the very same order of the High Court, they are being disposed
of by the following common order.
H
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS1227
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

3. For convenience, let us refer the parties as arrayed in A
~ ~
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 363 of 2009. Laqshya
Media Pvt. Ltd. and one Alok Jalan of Mumbai (Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 herein) approached the High Court of Bombay
.( under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue
a writ of mandamus in the nature of direction to the BEST, an B
undertaking of the State of Maharashtra (Appellant No. 1
herein) to invite fresh tenders from the public by terminating the
work orders/contracts awarded to Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
and Prithvi Associates - Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein under
the tender and to restrain the BEST from extending or modifying c
the terms of the work orders/contracts awarded to Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 following the tender system. According to the
appellants, on 31.03.2005, the BEST floated a tender for
awarding contracts of sole agency for advertisement rights on
Bus Queue Shelters fn Brihan Mumbai for 2005-2008. For
D
l operational ease, the entire area of Brihan Mumbai was divided
~ into three lots, namely, Lot No.1 - Eastern Suburbs, Lot No. II
- the Western Suburbs and '...ot No.Ill -the City. Tenderers were
required to offer lump-sum display charges for the period of
contract, i.e., till December, 2008. The tende,_rs received would
be evaluated on the basis of total lump-sum display charges E
offered by the tenderers for an individual lot. The contract would
be awarded for individual lots to different agencies depending
on the offers received. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, also
participated in the said tender for awarding contracts of sole
agency for advertisement rights on Bus Queue Shelters in F
Brihan Mumbai. But, as Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (in short
'BCCL') - Respondent No. 4 was the highest bidder for Lot
No. II - the Western Suburbs and Lot No.Ill--~ the City and
Respondent No. 5, Prithvi Associates was the highest bidder
for Lot No. I - the Eastern Suburbs, the tender came to be G
allotted in favour of them. However, no formal contract was
..... --'( signed between the BEST and the BCCL and the Prithvi
Associates and that the tender came to be allotted on the basis
of the acceptance letters/work orders issued by the BEST
which was contrary to Clause 24 of the Conditions of Contract. H
1228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 4. In December, 2006, the BEST floated the offer
document for erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of .. , ~

existing Bus Stop Poles and display of advertisement thereon
under "First Finder Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as the
'Scheme'). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendered their bid for the ).
B Scheme. It was their grievanceI that the tender having been
called only for display of advertisement on existing Bus Queue
Shelters till.31.12.2008 not only i~ an unilateral extension thereof
but an act of arbitrariness and discrimination. It is their further
grievance that under the guise of extension, BEST favoured
c BCCL and Prithvi Associates by granting them a long extension
and new benefits under the original tender. The action of the
authorities in negotiating for extension of the work orders
without issuing tenders and their action in refusing to act in fair
and transparent manner or to disclose thP.ir intention are
arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, mala fide, contrary to the terms
D
of the tender and violation of the fundamental rights and thereby i
deprived Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of their rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, hence, they
prayed for-appropriate directions by way of writ of mandamus.

E 5. Before the High Court, the BEST filed an affidavit through
its Chief Engineer explaining their stand. It was stated therein
that under the Scheme there is no· question of competitive
bidding and parties are free to choose the specific Bus Stops ·
\-
they wish to develop. The writ petitioners (Respondent Nos. 1
F and 2 herein) themselves selected 22 bus ~tops under the
Scheme without competitive bidding. Respondents 4 & 5 who,
under their earH.er licences/Contracts dated 09.06.2005 cmd
04.07.2005 respectively, had secured the right to adv~rtise on-
existing Bus Queue Shelters which was valid till ': 1.12.2008,
G were invited by the 2nd appellant as.suggested by the BEST
Committee to participate in the Scheme with. reference to the
existing bus shelters under their control for modernizing the
~
same.

6. It is the further case of BEST that the Government of
H
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1229
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

Maharashtra had constituted an Empowered Committee under A
the Chaitmariship .of the Chief Secretary to monitor the progress
of implementation of Mumbai Transformation Project. The
Committee consisted of the Chief Secretary and other
Secretaries of various departments. Its agenda, Item No. 2(v)
referred to beautification of bus shelters and Item No. (6) of the B
said Minutes of the Meeting referred to presentation to be
made on bus shelters and the approval of the model of Modern
Bus Queue Shelters presented by the BEST. As per the
decision recorded in the meeting dated 02.09.2006 of the
Empowered Committee, the BEST obtained prior approval c
from the BEST Committee vide BCR 474 dated 07.12.2006
for erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of bus stop poles
and ·display of advertisement thereon. The idea was to call for
bids to develop the Bus Queue Shelters on the basis of the
Scheme. Interested parties such as Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4,
0
and 5 could bid for as many Bus Stop Poles as they may wish
to develop and were free to choose any location they preferred.
Consequently, in implementation of the Scheme, the BEST in
the month of. December, 2006 offered to interested persons,
documents for erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of the
existing bus stop poles. E

7. In response to the offer put up by the BEST,
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and other 12 parties came forward with
their proposal for construction/erection of Modern Bus Queue
Shelters in place of existing Bus Stop poles. All the 13 parties F
were allotted with the work of construction of modern Bus Queue
Shelters. Against 2,384 bus stop poles available under the
Scheme, they were able to award only 483 bus stop poles and
that too, to 13 different parties. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
had also submitted proposal for construction of modern Bus G
Queue Shelters under the Scheme and were successful in
getting 22 BEST bus stop poles. Under the Scheme, there is
no tender procedure and the party who brings their proposal
first is entitled to work.
H
1230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 8. The BEST Committee, by their proceedings, dated
27 .12.2006 had approved the proposal of successful parties
under the Scheme. Since the "Mumbai Transformation Project"
~h -
related to entire Mumbai, the BEST Committee, while
approving the said proposals, also suggested to the BEST that
B it should invite a proposal from Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who
held all Bus Queue Shelters in Eastern, Western Suburbs and
the City till the year 2008 in case they desire to construct the
modern Bus Queue Shelters in place of Old Bus Queue
Shelters under their respective jurisdiction. This suggestion of
c BEST Committee had been communicated to Respondent Nos. -~
4 and 5 with a request to submit their proposal in the
prescribed format. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had existing
licences with BEST in respect of display of advertisements on
Bus Queue Shelters. Respondent No. 4 is in possession of 702
Bus Queue Shelters in the Western Suburbs "Lot No. II" and
D
717 Bus Queue Shelters in the City zone "Lot No. Ill" under Work
Order dated 09.06.2005. Respondent No. 5 is in possession l
of 724 Bus Queue Shelters in the Eastern Suburbs "Lot No. I"
under Work Order dated 14.07.2005. As per the original terms
of the licences, they were valid up to 31st December, 2008 with
E an option to renew up to 31st December 2009. Since, the idea
of the Empowerment Committee was to implement the Mumbai
Transformation Project, it was felt that all Bus Queue Shelters
in the city should be modernized including those which are
being operated by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Pursuant to the
F suggestions of the BEST Committee, the decision was
communicated to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and they
expressed their interest in constructing modern Bus Queue ~
I

Shelters as per the model approved by the Empowerment (
Committee in the place of existing Bus Queue Shelters which ,/

G were under their contract. After prolonged discussion, the
proposal of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was put to the BEST
Committee for its consideration with the relevant documents
~
and details. BEST Committee in its meeting dated 12.06.2007,
after detailed discussion, approved the proposal of Respondent
H Nos. 4 and 5 with certain modification in the terms and
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1231
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

conditions. By the new contract with Respondent Nos. 4 and A
5, the expected increase of revenue for the BEST is to the tune
., of Rs. 69 lakhs per month. The aforesaid contract was for a
period of 15 years with effect from 01.10.2007 and Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 are liable to pay increased rate of display charges
as per the renewed terms. There is neither impropriety nor there B
is any illegality. The design of modern Bus Queue Shelters are
approved by the Empowered Committee of Government of
Maharashtra and since Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to
reconstruct all the Bus Queue Shelters except those Bus Queue
.. Shelters which are situated within the Bus Station at their own c
cost as per the model approved by the Empowered
Committee, the BEST had awarded the said contract for 15
years with effect from 01.10.2007. Under the present contract,
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are required to reconstruct all the Bus
Queue Shelters in the pattern approved by the Empowered
D
Committee and also pay display charges from 01.10.2007
onwards at the revised rates.

9. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who were awarded contract
by the BEST also filed their affidavit conveying their stand.
According to them, there is no illegality in the award of contract E
since they were having valid existing licences for the display
of advertisements on all those Bus Queue Shelters till 31st
December, 2008 and renewable till 31st December, 2009 at
_J the told contractual rates. There is no illegality or impropriety
whatsoever. All the reconstructed Bus Queue Shelters are for F
greater public good and will provide world class infrastructure
to the city of Mumbai, added to it, the BEST is continuously
earning revenue therefrom.

10. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High
Court after holding that the subject contract had been awarded
G
., ..
~-
to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 bypassing the statutory provisions
by negotiation on the terms and conditions offered by them as
if no other party were ready to do it on better terms and
conditions, quashed the Work Order/Contract awarded to
H
1232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and directed the BEST to invite fresh
tenders as required under Section 460 M of MMC Act of 1888.
: ' ).- :
11. Heard Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General
for India for the BEST, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior
counsel for Prithvi Associates. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned
B
senior counsel for Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Mr.. Mukul
Rohtagi, learned senior counsel and Mr. P.H. Parikh, learned
senior counsel for the Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd. and for Alok
Jalan ..

c 12. The following issues that are to be considered are:

(i) Whether the appellants were justified in awarding work
order/contract in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 without
resorting to public tender?
D (ii) Whether proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 460M of
the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act enables the BEST
to award contract without inviting tenders?

{iii) Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside the
E work order/contract to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and
directing BEST to invite fresh tenders as required under
sub-section ( 1) of Section 460M of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act?

13. Initially, the BEST administration floated a tender in
F 2005 for sole advertisement rights on Bus Queue Shelters. It
is not in dispute that in the said tender, Prithvi Associates,
BCCL and Laqshya Media P. Ltd. had participated, however,
the contract was awarded to Prithvi Associates and BCCL -
Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein. The said contract was for a
G period of three years, which was to expire on 31.12.2008 with
an option forextension of one yeartill 31.12.2009. Admittedly,
there is no dispute about the said tender. This contract was only ~

for display of advertisements on the existing Bus Queue Y--
Shelters and there was no obligation on the part of the
H successful parties to carry out any construction or maintenance
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1233
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

or repairs of the said shelters. A

, -<\ 14. The BEST, in consultation with the Government of
Maharashtra, introduced a Scheme known as "First Finder
Scheme" in December, 2006 whereby interested parties were
invited to choose and select Bus Queue Poles in the city of
B
Mumbai, as per their liking, for the purposes of converting them
into modernized Bus Queue Shelters and display of
advertisements thereon. It is relevant to point out that this
Scheme contempl'ated both construction of Bus Queue Shelters
in the place of bus poles, maintenance of the same and also
display of advertisements. This Scheme was for a longer G
period, i.e., ten years. Display.charges for the said modernized
Bus Queue Shelters to be built by the successful applicants was
fixed by the BEST.' According to the BEST administration, 2384
poles were offered under the Scheme out of which 2136 bus
poles were appli~d for. However, only 483 bus poles were D
finally allotted inasmuch as many of the participants had evinced
+
more interest only on the saleable poles. It was brought to our
notice that approximately 1/3rd of the bus poles could be
allotted for conversion into Bus Queue Shelters. Laqshya Media
P. Ltd. - first respondent herein, applied for 200 bus poles and E
was finally allotted only 22. It is relevant to mention that bus
poles were allotted on first come first serve basis through open
offer and there was no tender floated by the BEST. Those
-4
contracts under the Scheme were allotted under Section
460K(c) of the Act. Since the response was found to be poor F
under the Scheme·, a decision was taken to implement the
Mumbai Transformation Project of 02.09.2006. It was
considered that, (a) 'Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 had contracts valid
till December, 2009 extendible till December, 2009; (b) There
1

were many advertisers already advertising under contracts G
entered into by the Appellant and the 4th respondent; and (c)
The First Finder Scheme had been a complete failure as only
....
---; ~ 1/3rd poles got to be taken. In such a situ;:;;+;on, in order to make
a uniform renovation of all bus shelters whether saleable or non-
saleable, the appellants were asked to give their proposals.
H
1234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Under the 2007 contract, the earlier tender contract of 2005 in
favour of Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 was extended on the terms
).
and conditions of the Scheme in order to include all those bus
shelters which had been allotted to them for-the purposes of
display of advertisements. By this extension or new contract,
B Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 had 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 Empowered Committee meeting held on
02.09.2006. As stated earlier, the said project envisaged, inter
c alia, modernization of all bus shelters and bus poles.

15. Before going into the correctness of the decision
arrived at by the Empowered Committee and the ultimate work
order by the BEST in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 & 5, it is
useful to refer the relevant provisions from the Act. Section 460A
D empowers the General Manager to manage the BEST and
perform all acts necessary for the economical and efficient
maintenance, operation, administration and development of the
Undertaking. Among the various provisions, we are very much
concerned with Sections 460K, 460L and 460M of the Act which
E reads as under:

"460K. Making of contracts

With respect to the making of contracts for the purposes
of the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport ....'
F Undertaking (including contracts relating to the acquisition
and disposal of immovable property or any interest therein,
or any right thereto) the following provisions shall have
effect, namely:-

G (a) every such contracts shall be made on behalf of the
corporation by the General Manager;
.,,
(b) no such contract for any purpose which, in )<--
accordance with any provision of this Chapter, the
General Manager may not carry out without the
H
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1235
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
approval or sanction of some other municipal A
authority, shall be made by him until or unless such
approval or sanction has first been duly given;

(c) no contract which will involve an expenditure
exceeding ten lakhs rupees shall be made by the
8
General manager unless the same is previously
approved by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and
Transport Committee:

Provided that, where the previous approval of Committee
is sought for any such contract by the General manager, C
the Committee shall consider and dispose of such proposal
within thirty days from the date of on which the item is first
included in the agenda of any meeting of the Committee,
failing which, the previous approval shall be deemed to
have been given by the Committee for such contract on D
the last day of the period of thirty days aforesaid. A report
to that effect shall be made by the General Manager to the
Committee;

(d) every contract made by the General Manager E
involving an expenditure exceeding one lakh rupees
shall be reported by him within fifteen days after the
same has been made to the Brihan Mumbai Electric
Supply and Transport Committee;

(e) the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far F
as may be, apply to every contract which the
General Manager shall have occasion to make in

- the execution of this Act; and the same provisions
of this section which apply to an original contract
shall be deemed to apply also to any variation or G
discharge of such contract."

460L Mode of executing contracts.

(1) Every contract entered into by the General Manager on
behalf of the corporation for the purposes of the Brihan H
1236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking shall
be entered into in such manner and form as would bind ....
the General Manager if such contract were on his own
behalf, and may in the like manner and form be varied or
discharged:
8
Provided that every contract for the execution of any
work or the supply of any materials or goods which will
involve an expenditure exceeding ten lakh rupees or for the
disposal of property of the corporation exceeding twenty-
five thousand rupees in value shall be in writing and shall +
c · be signed by the General Manager and countersigned by
two members of the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and
Transport Committee.

(2) No contract which is not executed in accordance with
D the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be binding upon the
corporation.

460M Mode of executing contracts.

(1) Except as is hereinafter otherwise provided, the General
E Manager shall, at least seven days before entering into any
contract for the execution of any work or the supply of any
materials or goods which will involve an expenditure
exceeding· fifty thousand rupees, given notice by
}_
advertisement in the local newspapers inviting tenders for
F such contract.

· (2) The General Manager shall not be bound to accept any
tender which may be made in pursuance of such notice,
but may accept, subject to the provisions of clause (c) of
section 460K, any of the tenders so made which appears
G
to him, upon a view of all the circumstances, to be the most
advantageous:
)r~

Provided that the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and
Trnasport Committee may authorize the General Manager
H for reasons which shall be recorded in their proceedings
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1237
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYAMEDIAP LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

to enter into a contract without inviting tenders as herein A
·, ~ provided or without accepting any tender which he may
receive after having invited them."

A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that th.e
General Manager is the ultimate authority in all respects
B
including maintenance, operation, administration and
development of the BEST. Sub-section (1) of Section 460M
makes it clear that for execution of any work or the supply of
any materials or goods which will involve an expenditure
exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the General Manager is
mandated to give notice by advertisement in the local c
newspapers inviting tenders for such contract. However,
proviso to sub-section(2) enables the BEST Committee to
authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract without
inviting tenders as provided in sub-section( 1) or without
accepting any tender which he may receive after having invited D
+ them. The only condition is that the BEST Committee has to
specifically authorize the General Manager and reasons for
deviating for inviting tender are to be recorded in writing before
such authorization.
E
16. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. P.H. Parikh, learned senior
appearing for the Laqshya Media P. Ltd. and Alok Jalan, by
drawing our attention to the 'heading' of Section 460M
J submitted that it is but proper to give importance to the same.
The heading of the Section reads as under:
F
"Tenders to be invited for contracts involving expenditure
exceeding rupees fifty thousand".

In support of the above contention, they relied on the following
decisions of this Court: G
1. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. vs.
Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Ors.
(2002) s sec 54

H
~238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V.
'
Koda/a & Ors. (2001) 5 SCC 175 ).-

3. K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer, Emakulam
& Anr. (1981) 4 sec 173

B 4. Madh~v Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia vs. Union of India
(1971) 1 sec 85

5. British Airways PLC vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2002) 2 sec 95 .4-

c 6. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8
sec 705.
The ratio in all these cases leads to a conclusion that heading
D in a particular section lends, though not normally a part of the ;.
statutory provision, assistance in interpreting the statutory intent
since the 'heading' always serves as a guide to depict the
intention. It also makes it clear that the marginal n-ote to a
section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the
E section but it can certainly be relied upon as indicating the drift
of the section. It also shows that the heading/marginal notes,
prima facie, furnish some clue as to the meaning and purpose
of the section. In the light of the above principles, we hold that }._
the 'heading' of 460M has some bearing while construing the
F sub-sections (1) & (2) therein. .
.
17. Coming to the language of sub-section (1) of Section
460M that "tenders to be invited.,for contracts involving
expenditure exceeding rupees fifty thousand", learned senior
counsel heavily relied on the following decisions of this Court:
G
(1) Mahesh Chandra vs. Ragional Manager, U.P.
Financial Corporation & Ors'! (1993) 2 SCC 279
....-:.
(2) Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Jagdamba
Oil Mills & Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 496
H
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSj239
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(3) Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana & · A
Ors. (1985) 3 sec 267

(4) Nagar Nigam, Meerut vs. Al Faheem Meat Exports
(PJ Ltd. (2006) 13 sec 382

(5) Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State B
Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC
1
(6) M./. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors.
(1999) 6 sec 464 c
(7) Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New
Delhi Municipal Council (2007) 8 SCC 75

(8) Sterling Computers Ltd. vs. Mis M & N Publications
Ltd. (1993) 1 sec 445 o
In all these cases, this Court has emphasized that the public
property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the
State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting
tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only E
to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure
fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. It
also emphasizes that the authority should justify the action
assailed on the touchstone of justness, fairness,
reasonableness and as a reasonable prudent owner. -
F
18. In the light of the abovementioned legal principles
enunciated by this Court, let us test the decision of the BEST
in awarding work orders/contract in favour of Respondent Nos.
4 & 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 460M makes it clear that the
General Manager is one who authorized to manage and G
perform all acts necessary for efficient maintenance, operation,
development and administration of the ·BEST. It also
emphasizes that in all action or execution of any work including
·supply of materials or goods which exceeds fifty thousand
rupees, the General Manager is bound to give notice by H
i-
1240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

advertisement in the local newspaper inviting tenders for such
A
work orders/contracts. However, Mr. Vahanvati, learned
... ,____

Attorney General, appearing for the BEST, Mr. Harish N. Salve
and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for
the successful contractors, submitted that while there is no
B doubt about the proposition mentioned above, however,
pointed out that proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 460M
authorizes the General Manager to enter into i contract without
inviting tenders as provided in sub-section(1) and the only
condition is that the BEST Committee has to authorize him by ~

c recording adequate reasons. It is not in dispute that the 'First
Finder Scheme' was introduced in December, 2006 whereby
interested parties were invited to choose and select Bus Queue
Poles in the city of Mumbai as per their liking for the purpose I
of conver:ting them into modernized Bus Queue Shelters and /

D
display of advertisements thereon. It was pointed out that
approximately only 1/3rd of the poles could be allotted for
.,
conversion into shelters. Even one of the contesting parties, F-
namely, Laqshya Media P. Ltd. applied for 200 bus poles and
was finally allotted only 22. According to the BEST, as the
response was found to be poor under the Scheme and taking
E note of the fact that Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have contracts valid
till December 2008 extendible till December, 2009, in order to
make a uniform renovation of all Bus Queue Shelters and to
implement the Mumbai Transformation Project, they were asked l...

to give their proposals. From this it is clear that the BEST
F administration wanted to implement the Mumbai Transformation
Project at the earliest and the initial work under the 'First Finder
Scheme' was not fully successful as estimated. Annexure P-5
which is available in Vol.II placed by the appellant - BEST
shows that it obtained approval from the BEST vide BCR 474
G dated 07.12.2006. Annexure P-6 is the approval given by the
BEST Committee vide BCR 507 dated 27.12.2006. Since it
}It ...
.
was heavily contended that the BEST Committee approved the
proposal to engage Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 instead of public
tender in order to implement the Mumbai Transformation Project
H as early as possible, let us verify the materials placed by the
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1241
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

... appellants. A-
"THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY &
TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING

(BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA)
B
CIVIL ENGINEERING BRANCH

Item No. 356 27 December, 2006
4

NOTE TO THE BEST COMMITTEE DATED 26.12.2006
c
Ref : GM/AGM(c)/37312006

Sub: Erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of existing
Bus Stop Poles and display of advertisement thereon under
First Finder Scheme
_,_ D
1. The BEST Committee vide BCR 474 dated
07.12.2006 has approved the introduction of First
Finder Scheme in the Undertaking for converting
the bus stop poles into Bus Queue Shelters.
. E
~ 2. Accordingly, the Scheme was notified in local
newspaper on 11.12.2006. In response, various
~ advertising agencies have submitted their offers ir.
-f the prescribed forms issued by the Undertaking. As
on 18.12.2006, offers have been received from 20
F
agencies. The First Finder for bus stop poles
applied by the Agencies have been finali.zed,
according to the serial number on the receipt of
process fee of Rs. 750/- per bus stop pole paid by
these agencies.
G
' 3. Accordingly, the list of agencies have been
..... ~
prepared along with the No. of location applied by
these agencies for erection bus queue shelters in

H
1242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A place of existing bus stop poles, which are as under:

S. Name of Agency No. of Bus No. of Bus Receipt
No. stop poles stop poles (Proces-
applied for proposed sing fee)
B to be
allotted

1. Mis Pioneer 129 Nos. 129 Nos. 0040827
Publicity
Corporation 11.12.06
c
2. Mis Symbiosis 40 Nos. 3 Nos. 0040831
Advertising 11.12.06

3. Mis Shreeji 150 Nos. 81 Nos. 0040834
Enterprises
D 11.12.06

4. Mis Clear 90 Nos. 31 Nos. 0040835
channel
Communication 11.12.06
E (I) Pt. Ltd. I

;
5. Mis Manta 40 Nos. 2 Nos. 0040836
Media 11.12.06

6. Mis Shivraj 55 Nos. 12 Nos. 0040838
F Advertising 11.12.06

7. Mis S.V. 125 Nos. 58 Nos. 0040839
Advertising 11.12.06 I

'
8. Mis Prabha 200 Nos. 73 Nos. 0040841
G Advertising 11.12.06

9. Mis One ad 82 Nos. 10 Nos. 0040847
Display Pvt. Ltd. 11.12.06

10. Mis Prachar 450 Nos. 202 Nos. 0040851
H '
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1243
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYAMEDIAP LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

Communication A
Ltd. 11.12.06

11. M/s Medial 18 Nos. Nil 0040856
Tacks 11.12.06

12. Mis Attitude 25 Nos. 5 Nos. 0040857 B
11.12.06

13. M/s J.C. 400 Nos. 116 Nos. 0040873
Decauz
Advertising c
India Pvt. Ltd. 11.12.06

14. Mis Positive 30 Nos. r-rn 0040878
Advt. Pvt. Ltd. 11.12.06

15. Mis Enkon Pvt. 20 Nos. 2 Nos. 0040879 D
Ltd. 11.12.06

16. M/s Times 14 Nos. 1 Nos. 0040891
Media
Publication 11.12.06
E
17. Ws Sporting & 26 Nos. 1 Nos. 0040910
Outdoor
Solution 12.12.06

18. Mis OM Jal 30 Nos. 6 Nos. 0040912
12.12.06 F

19. Mis Laqshya 200 Nos. 22 Nos. 0040915
Media Pvt. Ltd. I
12.12.06

20. M/s Ashok 12 Nos. 11 Nos. 0041013
Sharma & G
Associates
Pvt. Ltd. 14.12.06

Total 2136 Nos. 765 Nos.
H
1244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 4. It is pertinent to point out here that as per Clause 47 of
the Terms & Conditions of Contract, the Agency has to pay ..
an amount of Rs. 750/- for each location of bus stop poles
as processing fees, which is non-refundable. However, it
is felt unjust to forfeit the said amount of processing fees
B of Agencies for the sites which are not awarded to them.
Hence, it is proposed to refund the said amount of
processing fees to the Agencies for the sites which are
not awarded to them.
.),_
5. Further, while approving the proposal for introduction of
c the scheme, the BEST Committee resolved that excluding
the Property Tax, the Licence Fees, etc. shall be borne by
the Agency. Hence the word 'Property Tax' shall stand
deleted from the Clause (e) & 18(i) of the Terms and
Conditions of the Scheme.
D
6. The approval of the BEST Committee is, therefore, -+
requested.

(i) · To award the contract under First Finder Scheme
under all Terms & Conditions' of approved scheme
E
to 18 Agencies for 765 bus stop poles as detailed
in Annexure 'A'· to 'R' & Annexure 'S' under First
Finder Scheme and to enter into the contract with
them under Section 460 'K(C)' of MMC Act-1888
as amended upto date.
F
. (ii) To refund an amount of Rs. 750/- per bus stop pole
to all the agencies for the sites which are '10t
awarded to them.

While speaking on the subject, S!1ri Ravi R..:.;a stated that,
G
the Administration had in the past, \·:ith ttie approval of the
B.E.S. & T. Committee, aw3rded the contract for display )y ~

of advertisements on the bus queue shelters of the
Undertaking by dividing the same between the firms M/s.
Prithvi Associates & Mis. Bennet & Colemn within the
H
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1245
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

limits of the Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika. He further A
... stated that, instead of constructing the bus queue shelters
by the BEST Undertaking, if the said Agencies construct
the bus queue shelters within the limits of the Brihan
Mumbai Mahanagar Palika, they may be permitted to
display the advertisements on the said bus queue shelters. 8
Also, they may be included in the said scheme.

The General Manager stated that, if the said
Agencies are complying with the terms and conditions of
the Scheme by constructing new bus queue shelters in
place of the existing bus queue shelters, they will also be c
included in the said Scheme.

The Chairman stated that, if the concern Agencies
approach the Undertaking for construction of new bus
queue shelters in place of the existing bus queue shelters D
and if the said Agencies are fulfilling the terms and
conditions of the Scheme, they may be included in the said
Scheme.

Thereafter, as their was no further discussion in the
E
matter, the Chairman put the proposal submitted by the
Administration to vote and since it was not opposed by
anyone, he declared that it was carried unanimously.

Thereafter
F
507 No.507- Resolved: "That, the approval be and is
hereby given to the proposal containing Para no. 6 of the
Note of the Committee."

19. The contract in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for
modernization and advertising on new BQS was approved by G
the BEST Committee vide item No. 112 dated 12.06.2007 as
... -«, under:-

"Ref: Note to the BEST Committee dated 08.06.2007 No.
GM/AGM(C)/114/2007. H
1246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 148. No.148 - RESOLVED: "That approval be and is
hereby given, as required under Section 460 K(e) of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended "<·

upto date of extend the contracts as proposed in para no.6
to 9, except sub-para (B) of para no.9 of the note to the
B Committee.

2. "That, approval be and is hereby also given for extension
period of the contract and display charges as per this
Scheme shall start from the 1st October, 2007, instead of
from the tst day of following month in which the said
c proposal is approved by the BEST Committee, as
)._

proposed in sub-para (B) of para 9 of the Note to the
Committee.

B.C.R.No.148 Sd/-
D
Dated 12.06.2007. SECRETARY
+-
AGM(C)"

20. By pointing out the approval given by the BEST, the
E appellants submitted that no expenditure is to be incurred by
the BEST. On the other hand, the Corporation is to earn both
from the display charges and the construction of bus Queue
Shelters, which belong to the Corporation itself and at the end
of the 15 year term, revert back to the Corporation. It is the
F Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are to spend money on
~

modernization as per the approved plan of BEST and
maintenance of BQS and in return the BEST is to receive
revenue on display charges payable by Respondent Nos. 4 and
5. In these factual aspects, it was pointed out that there has ., -
been no violation of any statutory provision. in awardlrlg the
G
contract in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

21. It is not in dispute that the initial tender contract
awarded to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was up to 31.12.2008 ~md ),. .
extendable for a period of one year. However, it was only for
H display of advertisement in the Bus Queue Shelters and not the
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1247
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

construction of any Bus Queue Shelters. The Mumbai A
Beautification Project was envisaged on 02.09.2006 under
·• which one of the resolutions was to beautify all the bus shelters
in the city of Mumbai. As part of the said project, BEST came
up with the Scheme in December, 2006. The main grievance
of the BEST was that there was no proper response in respect B
of non-saleable bus shelters, hence BEST administration on
27.12.2006, decided that in order to implement the Mumbai
Transformation Project and ensure uniformity in the
modernization process of BQS and bus queue poles in the city
of Mumbai, it was agreed that the Scheme should be extended
G
to Prithvi Associates and BCCL. The said Meeting was
nttended by the Chairman as well as the General Manager of
the BEST. It was pointed out that item No. 356 dated
27.12.2006 (which we have extracted above) clearly records
suggestion made by both the General Manager and the
D
Chairman of the BEST to initiate dialogue and negotiations with
. Prithvi and BCCL for the purpose of modernization of the BQS
who were using the same for displaying advertisement under
the 2005 contract, there is no procedural illegality and violation
of any statutory provisions.
E
22. The appellants heavily relied on the note placed before
the BEST Committee and approval for entrusting the work
relating to BQS in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It was
pointed out that during the discussion in the meeting dated
J
27.12.2006 one Shri Raviraja, one of the Committee members, F
had mentioned the firms of Prithvi Associates and BCCL who
were awarded contract for display of advertisements in the
BQS. He suggested that instead of constructing the BQS by
the BEST undertaking, if the said agencies (Prithvi Associates
and BCCL) construct BQS within the limits of Brihan Mumbai G
Mahanagar Palika, they may be permitted to display the
advertisements on t!le said BQS. By pointing out the same, he
• ·<!( requested that they may also be included in the Scheme. The
note - Item no. 356 further shows that the General Manger has
expressed that if the said agencies are complying with the
H
1248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R.

A terms and conditions of the Scheme by constructing new BQS
in the place of existing BQS, they will also be included in the
said Scheme. The Chairman also expressed the same view. ·~·

Thereafter, the Chairman put the proposal submitted by the
administration to vote, since it was not opposed by anyone, he
B announced that it was carried unanimously. It may be relevant
to mention that the Empowered Committee consisted of the
Chief Secretary and other top administrative officers of various
Departments including the General Manager of the BEST.

23. In the Ught of the language used in sub-section (1 ), we
c are of the view that calling for tenders is a rule and finalizing
any contract without inviting tenders as provided in sub-section
(1) is an exception. We have already adverted to various
decisions of this Court as to how properties belonging to
Central/State/its instrumentalities are to be dealt with. Learned
D senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 pointed out that all the decisions
~
relied on by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 related to the sale of
public properties, hence those principles are not applicable to
the case on hand. They also highlighted that as per the contract,
E Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have to build bus shelters as
designed by the BEST, advertise, earn income and also pay
the agreed amount to the BEST and after 15 years all the bus
shelters have to be handed over to the BEST administration.
In other words, according to them, there is no element of sale
F or disposal of public property as claimed by the contesting
respondents. It is true that by entering into a contract with
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the BEST administration has not lost
its title over the property, but on the other hand assured of
getting regular income without any financial implications apart
G from providing better facilities for the public.
24. We have already extracted the entire note placed
before the Committee for discussion which did _disclose
reasons for not adhering to public tender and entering into a
~ .
contract with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alone. The 'Note" also
H
BR IHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.1249
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

discloses that thorough discussion was held among the A

... ~
members of the Committee, General Manager and Chairman.
There is no sale or element of sale in the impugned transaction .
However, to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and
public authorities, their dealing should be above board. Nothing
should be done by the public authorities which gives an 8
Jt
impression of bias, favoritism and ordinarily these factors would
be absent if the matter is brought to public auction by inviting
tenders. We have no doubt that in exceptional cases having
regard to the nature of the trade or largesse or for some other
-<I
good reason, a contract may have to be granted by private
negotiation, but clearly that should not be done without adequate
c
reasons as it shakes the public confidence. In the case on hand,
I

in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 460M, BEST
Committee after due deliberation authorized the General
Manager to enter into contract without inviting tenders, since it
D
is beneficial to the BEST and general public.

25. The materials placed show that (a) the contractors,
namely, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were having existing
agreement with the BEST administration for the display of
advertisements in the bus shelters/poles till 31.12 .2008 and E
extendable by one more year (b) In the First Finder Scheme in
spite of wide publicity, response was very poor and only 483
saleable bus shelters/poles allotted (c) Mumbai Transformation
Project requires urgent attention and timely completion of the
;
work (d) Due to enormous financial implication, BEST was not F
in a position to undertake demolition and construction of new
bus shelters (e) By this method, the BEST without spending
their money through the existing contracts (Respondent Nos. 4
t.
and 5) could complete the modernization work and also earn
I sizeable income by way of advertisement (f) Ownership always G
lies with the BEST, after expiry of the contractual period these
-(
bus shelters revert back to the BEST.
Y.
26. In the iight of the above discussion, we arrive at the
following conclusion:-
H

·-
1250 SU,PREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (a) Generally disposal of public properties owned by the
State or its instrumentalities should be by public auction
by inviting tenders. In the case on hand, the bus shelters 'f

belong to the BEST and Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were
permitted to build bus shelters as per the norms, display
B advertisements and pay charges to the BEST in terms of .ii,
contract.

(b) Proviso to. sub-section (2) of Section 460M enables
General Manager to deviate the process of inviting tenders
subject to reasons duly recorded by the BEST Committee.
c
(c) Empowered Committee of BEST consisting of the
Chief Secretary and other senior officers of various
departments after deliberation and taking various relevant
aspects authorized the General Manager to finalise the
D work with Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 since they are having
existing contract in advertisement in bus shelters/poles.
Further, the 'First Finder Scheme' was not successful. ~

(d) By Mumbai Transformation Project, the BEST is to
complete the work relating to bus shelters without any
E
financial commitment and also get its share of revenue.

(e) By this contract with Respondent Nos. 4 & 5, the BEST
administration is assured of not only regular revenue but
also better facilities to the general public as well. ~
F
27. It is brought to our notice that even during the hearing
before the High Court it was submitted that pursuant to the
contract, Respondent No. 4 has constructed about 1/3rd of the
total Bus Queue Shelters allotted to it and Respondent Nos. 5
,-"
has constructed about 40% of the Bus Queue Shelters allotted
G
to it. This was the position prior to November, 2008. On
19.11.2008, the High Court while passing orders at the request
of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, suspended its order for a period
of eight' weeks and this Court while ordering notice on
13.01.2009, extended the order of stay. Though on equity, they
H
_..
BRIHAN ML!MBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANS.125t
UNDERTAKING v. LAQSHYA MEDIA P LTD. [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

can not have better claim, but the fact remains that Respondent A

( . Nos. 4 and 5 were continuing the contract work throughout
during the pendency of the proceeding before the High Court
and in this Court. Taking note of all these aspects and peculiar
position as mentioned above and in order to render substantial

-· and complete justice to the parties, we feel that at this juncture, a
continuation of the contract by BEST with the Respondent Nos.
4 and s,is the only acceptable solution.

28. With the above conclusion, we modify the impugned
order of the High Court and direct the Respondent Nos. 4 and
5 to adhere to the terms of contract strictly. We make it clear C
that if there is any breach or violation, BEST is at liberty to act ,
in accordance with law. All the three appeals are disposed of
on the above terms. No costs.

D.G. Appeals disposed of. D

.....