"whether the State Government can be compelled to do business with a person against whom a criminal case has been registered", which needs to be considered particularly, in cases of grant of exclusive privilege in favour of a tenderer. In "Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh", reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685, dealing with the submission that under the Delhi Police Rules, past involvement of a person in a criminal case is not a disqualification for appointment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though, Rule 6 does not make a person with criminal antecedent ineligible, to conclude that antecedents of moral turpitude however grave, can be overlooked, does not stand to reason. In "Delhi Development Authority & Anr. Vs. UEE Electricals Engineering (P) Ltd. & Anr.", reported in (2004) 11 SCC 213, one of the Directors of the Company assaulted the Assistant Engineer of DDA and caused injury to him. The Works Advisory Board decided that the tender of the company should not be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "This is not a case where the Authority can be said to have acted in a malafide manner or with oblique motives. If the Authority felt that in view of the background facts, it would be undesirable to accept the tender, the same is not open to judicial review in the absence of any proved malafide or irregularity".