Bombay High Court Overturns Minorities Commission's Tender Cancellation Order
The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside a January 2010 order issued by the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission. This order had cancelled the tender process of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) and directed a criminal investigation into the matter.
Court Declares Commission Lacks Adjudicatory Powers
In a significant ruling delivered on February 5, Justice Amit Borkar declared that the Minorities Commission does not possess adjudicatory powers similar to those of a court or tribunal. The court emphasized that the commission has no explicit authority to cancel contracts, annul tenders, or direct criminal investigations by specialized agencies.
The case originated from complaints that led the commission, in December 2010, to cancel MSRTC's tender process and order an investigation by the crime branch into all its tenders. MSRTC subsequently approached the High Court, arguing that the commission had exceeded its jurisdiction under the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission Act. In 2012, the High Court imposed a blanket stay on the commission's order, pending further review.
Justice Borkar Highlights Legal Boundaries
Justice Borkar elaborated on the legal implications of the commission's actions. He stated that cancelling a tender process carries civil consequences, affects contractual rights, and interferes with executive functions. A direction to the crime branch to conduct an inquiry "carries even more serious implications" and "may expose officers to criminal scrutiny," the judge noted.
A plain reading of Section 10 of the Act, which outlines the functions of the commission, reveals that the legislature used the term "functions" rather than "powers" of adjudication or enforcement. "The distinction is important. A body may be entrusted with duties of examination, recommendation, monitoring, and reporting. That does not automatically mean that it can pass binding or coercive orders affecting legal rights," Justice Borkar explained.
Good Intentions Cannot Override Statutory Limits
Even if the commission's intention was to protect minority rights, "good intention cannot enlarge statutory boundaries," said Justice Borkar. He added that public bodies must operate strictly within the legal framework. The cancellation of a tender impacts contractual rights and affects bidders, and such power must be specifically conferred by law—it cannot be assumed.
The judge acknowledged the vital role of the commission in safeguarding minority rights. It can examine complaints, call for information, recommend corrective measures, and bring deficiencies to the government's attention. "These are significant functions. However, they remain advisory and supervisory in nature. They do not convert the commission into an adjudicatory forum," he clarified.
Commission Assumed Powers Beyond Its Mandate
By cancelling the tender and directing a criminal inquiry, the commission assumed powers akin to those of a court or an investigating agency. Justice Borkar concluded that the Act does not confer such powers. "The impugned order therefore travels beyond the limits of Section 10… cannot be sustained," he stated, thereby invalidating the commission's 2010 directive.
This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory bodies must adhere to their designated roles and cannot overstep legal boundaries, even with noble intentions. It provides clarity on the functional limits of the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission, ensuring that its actions remain within the advisory and supervisory scope as intended by the legislature.
