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 herein below.

1. Near relative as defined by the Bank viz. (Spouse, Father (including step father), Mother (including step mother), Son (including step-son) and/or his wife, Grandsons, Daughter (including step-daughter) and/or her husband, Brother (including step-brother) and/or his wife, Sister and or her husband, father-in-law, Mother-in-law, Brother-in-law and/or his wife, Sister-in-law and/or her husband are barred.

2.1 It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioners brother (Satyendra Nath) is posted as Assistant in the respondent Bank in Patna and, in view of the embargo created by the aforesaid instructions, he is prohibited from empanelment. The petitioner prays that the same may be struck down as invalid. Hence this writ petition.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action is hit by Art. 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 petitioners 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) - Baliram Prasad V/s. Union of India.

(ii) - Lal Babu Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and Anr. Paragraph 6.

(iii) - Tarsem Singh V/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and etc.). Paragraph 8.

(iv) - Maa Dakshinakali Animal Feeds V/s. State of Orissa and Ors.). Paragraph 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 - M.R.F. Ltd. V/s. Inspector, Kerala Govt. and Ors. (paragraph 13). The Bank is unable to control its internal affairs and outsiders like the petitioner can not be prohibited. He next submitted that the Banks 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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.

4. The respondents have placed on record more than one set of counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. Learned Counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the restriction is reasonable. In view of the general instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission, the Bank seeks to remedy the mischief which seems to afflict its contracts in t