Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.65 OF 2021 (GM – TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION No.17521 OF 2021 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.17537 OF 2021 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.18522 OF 2021 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.18714 OF 2021 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.19396 OF 2021 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.19448 OF 2021 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.1341 OF 2022 (GM – TEN)
WRIT PETITION No.12754 OF 2022 (GM – TEN)
IN WRIT PETITION No.65 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . SHARADA ELECTRICALS S/O THIPPERUDRAPPA AGRICULTURE OFFICE KHATA NO. 619, CHITRADURGA TALUKU – 577 543 REPT. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
2 T. NAGARAJA
2 . SRE EKANATHESWARI ELECTRICALS SHOP NO. 2191/465 GROUND FLOOR CHIKKAMMANUR DEVARAHAURS LAYOUT WARD NO.36, SHIVAKUMARNAGAR POST DAVANAGERE REPT BY IS PROPRIETOR SRI C.VEERANNA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL) KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 REPT. BY CHAIRMAN.
2 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINER (ELEC.) TRANSMISSION (W AND M) CIRCLE KPTCL, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
3 . THE DEPUTY MANAGER (DGM) TECHNICAL, KPTCL CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 001.
4 . CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO GOVT. NIRMAN BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, P.B. NO.5148, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010.
3 5 . CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOCK BUILDING JANPATH, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER OF WORK IN TENDER ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 10.11.2020 AT ANNEXURE-C AND TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER DATED 13.11.2020 AT ANNEXURE-D BY R-2; DIRECT THE ISSUANCE OF A FRESH TENDER IN RELATION TO THE WORKS COVERED UNDER THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-C STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 2010 REGULATIONS AND 2012 RULES AND ALSO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE DATED 02.07.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
IN WRIT PETITION No.17521 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . MANGALA ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR PWD ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL CONTRACTOR KAIKAMBA, GANJIMUTT OST, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 144 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, G.BHASKAR BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O G.NARAYANA BHAT,
4 R/AT MANGALA, BADAGA ULIPADI VILLAGE, GANJIMUTT, MANGALORE TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 574 144.
2 . M/S APOLLO ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PWD AND PRED CONTRACTORS, VITTAL ROAD, KALADKA, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 222 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.SULAIMAN G.
3 . J.C.ELECTRICALS CLASS-I, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, CHILPAR HOUSOE, DODDATHOTA POST, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 248 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI JAGADEESHA C.R.
4 . SRI.DURGA POWER SYSTEM DOOR NO.3-189/3, MONTHIMAR, MANCHI POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 323 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI GANESH PRABHU M.
5 . SRI.K.RATHANKAR NAIK S/O RAJEEVI HANGALOORU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR OPERATING OFFICE AND MAN POWER SUPPLY, R/AT 2/109-J, RATHANJALI, A.P.HALL ROAD, HANGALURU, N.H-66 KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 217.
5 6 . J.M.ELECTRICALS ELECTRICAL WORKS CONTRACTORS AND MAN POWER SUPPLY NO.5-964/3, RADHIKA PLAZA, COURT ROAD, PUTTUR D.K.DISTICT – 574 201 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.JAMES JOACHIM MADTHA.
7 . M/S SUDDHA ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND MAN POWER SUPPLY, NO.3-745, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT, KALLARE, PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI GURURAJ.
8 . KANARA TECHNICAL POWER COMPANY (R) ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND MAN POWER SUPPLY, NO.G-1-339/4, VITTAL ROAD, KALLADKA, GOLTHAMAJAL BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 222 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI JAGADEESHA C.R.
9 . S.M.P. ENTERPRISES ELECTRICAL WORKS CONTRACTORS AND MAN POWER SUPPLY, NO.1-93A, MESCOM OFRFICE, BANNURU, PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 203 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.JAMES JOACHIM MADTHA.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF ENERGY VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3 . THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) KPTCL KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGLURU – 560 009.
4 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER KPTCL HASSAN – 573 201.
5 . THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE) TR (W AND M) CIRCLE, KPTCL, MANGALORE CIRCLE, KAVOORU MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 006.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION ALL DATED 08.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE
7 R-5 VIDE ANNX-, A-1 TO A-6 RESPECTIVELY; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO CONTINUE THEIR SERVICES AS PERMITTED EARLIER VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD 29.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-5 VIDE ANNX-F6.
IN WRIT PETITION No.17537 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . M/S. MANASA ELECTRICALS REPT. BY ITS PARAMESH M.H., S/O LATE HOOVAPPA SHETTY H.N. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DOB: 22-06-1971 MAGODU, KANATHI POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TQ AND DIST – 577 120.
2 . M/S SEPONA ELECTRICALS REPT. BY ITS SHIVAKUMAR S.H., S/O LATE SANNAHALAPPA S.B., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DOB: 01-06-1963 SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA HOSAMANE 5TH CROSS SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
3 . M/S SRI LAKSHMI ELECTRICALS REPT. BY ITS SATISH N.K., S/O KALASAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS DOB: 09-02-1962 NILWAGILU @ POST KOPPA TALUK CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 120.
4 . M/S HERUR ELECTRICALS
8 REPT. BY ITS PRASANNA K.B., S/O K.R.BHAVANI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DOB: 03-08-1968 SEETHUR COMPLEX MAIN ROAD, KOPPA TALUK CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 120.
5 . M/S SAHYADRI ELECTRICALS REPT. BY ITS RADHAKRISHNA N.S., S/O N.SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS DOB: 27-11-1959 C.T.STREET, HOSANAGARA SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTY) MESCOM SHIVAMOGGA ZONE O AND M CIRCLE BALARAJ URS ROAD NEAR RAILWAY STATION SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER
9 NOTIFICATION DATED 17.09.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18522 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . KANARA TECHNICAL POWER COMPANY ® ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND MAN POWER SUPPLY N.G-1-339/4, VITTAL ROAD KALLADKA, GOLTHAMAJAL BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 574 222 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI JAGADEESHA C.R.,
2 . MANGALA ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELETRICAL CONTRACTOR PWD ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL CONTRACTOR KAIKAMBA, GANJIMUTT POST MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 144 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR G.BHASKAR BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O G.NARAYANA BHAT R/AT MANGALA, BADAGA ULIPADI VILLAGE GANJIMUTT, MANGALURU TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 574 144.
3 . SRI K.RATHNAKAR NAIK S/O RAJEEVI HANGALOORU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR OPERATING OFFICE AND MAN POWER SUPPLY
10 R/AT NO 2/109-J, RATHANJALI A.P.HALL ROAD HANGALURU N.H - 66 KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 217.
4 . M/S SHANTHI ELECTRICALS GOVT. LICENSED CLASS I CONTRACTOR ”KRITHIKA”, NO.2-114A 3(A) GOPALAPURA, SANTHEKATTE POST UDUPI REP. BY PROPRIETOR SRI JAIDEEP RAO B., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI B.KRISHNAMURTHY RAO R/AT NO.4 -1A (38), PREMIER ENCLAVE FLAT NO.804, UDUPI, MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104.
5 . PADMASHREE ELECTRICAL SERVICES GOVT. LICENSED CLASS I CONTRACTORS KUSUMA COMPLEX, OPP. VIJAYA BANK NH-66, B.C.ROAD, BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 574 219 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PADMANABHA MAYYA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE N.VENKATATA RAMANA MAYYA R/AT NO.5-181, ALABE, NARIKOMBU BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 231.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF ENERGY
11 VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M CIRCLE, KUNJIBETTU UDUPI CIRCLE, UDUPI – 576 101.
3 . THE SUPERITENDING ENGINEER (ELE) MESCOM LTD., O AND M CIRCLE, KUNJIBETTU UDUPI CIRCLE, UDUPI – 576 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD.27.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1; DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS BOTH DTD.30.9.2021 SUBMITTED BY ONE OF THE PETITIONER AND MAKE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS IN THE TENDER PROCESS COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, B1 RESPECTIVELY.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18714 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . VINAY ENTERPRISES GOVT. LICENSED SUPER GRANDE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER T.P.KAILASAM ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
12 TUMAKURU – 572 102 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI JAGADEESH S.K., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE S.R.KRISHNAMURTHY R/AT “VINAYA SHREE”, T.P.KAILASAM ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR TUMAKURU – 572 102.
2 . SREE SIDDESHWARA ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONSTRACTORS SHOP NO.2, SHRI KRISHNA COMPLEX BATWADI CIRCLE B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU – 572 104 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SURESH H., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE HANJARAPPA R/AT SIDDESHWARA NILAYA 2ND MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS VIJAYANAGARA, OPP.SAPTHAGIRI PROVISION STORE SOMESHWARAPURAM TUMAKURU – 572 102.
3 . PATHI ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENCED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS NO.80, HANUMAN TEMPLE BIJAVARA ROAD, GURUVADERAHALLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU – 572 132 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SRI ERANNA R/AT GURUVADERAHALLI MADHUGIRI TALUK
13 TUMAKURU – 572 132.
4 . ANNAYYA ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ANNAYYA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINIKETHANA ROAD SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION EAST BATWADI, TUMAKURU – 572 103 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BHASKARA K., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA R/AT ANNAYYA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINIKETHANA ROAD, SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION EAST BATWADI, TUMAKURU – 572 103.
5 . BHAGYA ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS NO.97, NEAR SHANTHALA TALKIES GBN ROAD, BOVI MATTU HARIJANA COLONY MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU – 572 132 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY N., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O SRI M.P.NANJUDAIAH R/AT NO.97, NEAR SHANTHALA TALKIES GBN ROAD, BOVI MATTU HARIJANA COLONY MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU – 572 132.
6 . R.K.ELECTRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS BEHIND GOVT. JR. COLLEGE PURAVARA ROAD, I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
14 TUMAKURU – 572 132 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI R.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O SRI RAMA REDDY R/AT PURAVARA ROAD I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TLAUK TUMAKURU – 572 132.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF ENERGY VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.
3 . THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECH), KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.
4 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER KPTCL, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
5 . THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE) TR (W AND M ) CIRCLE KPTCL, TUMAKURU – 572 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
15 SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19.03.2021/CALL 2 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR PROVIDING MANPOWER SERVICES FOR CARRYING OUT SHIFT OPERATIONS AND MINOR MAINTENANCE WORKS AT 66/11 KV HEGGARE, KOLALA, HONNUDIKE, TAVAREKERE SUB STATIONS OF THE KPTCL, TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION WITH BULLETIN IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, FOLLOWED WITH TENDER NOTIFICATION PAK66/11 KV HEGGARE, KOLALA, HONNUDIKE, TAVAREKERE SUB STATIONS OF THE KPTCL, TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION WITH BULLETIN IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AGE-1 TO TENDER NOTIFICATION PAKAGE-24 ALL PUBLISHED FROM 19.03.2021 TO 30.06.2021 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, TRUE COPIES OF WHICH DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT THROUGH E-PORTAL ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, B-1 AND B-2 AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.19396 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI RAMA ENTERPRISES REPT. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N.NARAYANASWAMY S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARANILAYA 1ST FLOOR, P.C.HALLI, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA, KOLAR KARNATAKA – 563 101.
2 . S.T.S ELECTRICALS REPT. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
16 NEERAJAKSHA NAIDU G., S/O G.NAGARAJA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SHRINGERI MUTT STREET MULABAGAL, KOLAR KARNATAKA – 563 131.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI , ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ELEC., TRANSMISSION (MAINTENANCE) BRAZ CIRCLE, KPTCL U.A.S CAMPUS HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 024. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING BID ENQUIRY NOS. DATED 25.2.2021 AT ANNEXURE-B, B1 TO B32; QUASH THE PAPER PUBLICATION OF TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 6.9.2021 AT ANNEXURE-C.
IN WRIT PETITION No.19448 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . MANGALA ELECRICALS SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, PWD ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL CONTRACTOR, KAIKAMABA, GANJIMUTT POST, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 144,
17 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, G. BHASKAR BHAT, S/O. G.NARAYANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT MANGALA, BADAGA ULIPADI VILLAGE, GANJIMUTT, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 144.
2 . M/S. APOLLO ELECTRICALS, SUPER GRADE LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PWD AND PRED CONTRACTORS, VITTAL ROAD, KALADKA, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 222, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. SULAIMAN G.,
3 . SRI. DURGA POWER SYSTEM DOOR NO. 3-189/3 MONTHIMAR, MANCHI POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 323, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. GANESH PRABHU M.,
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF ENERGY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M CIRCLE, KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI CIRCLE, UPUPI – 576 101.
3 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) MESCOM LTD., O AND M CIRCLE, SHAKTHISOUDHA, CIRCLE OFFICE,BONDEL-KAVOOR ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 015. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND CORRIGENDUM IN TENDER VIDE ANNEXURE-M; DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 12.10.2021 AND 13.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY ONE OF THE PETITIONERS AND MAKE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS IN THE TENDER PROCESS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND B1 RESPECTIVELY.
IN WRIT PETITION No.1341 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1 . M.P.ELECTRICALS
19 REP. BY PROPRIETOR SRI JAGADEESH M.R., AGED 64 YEARS S/O LATE D.RAME GOWDA R/AT BASAESHWARA TEMPLE MADDARAHALLI KANAKATTI, KITTANAN KERE HARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 117.
2 . JAYADEVA ELECTRICALS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI H.L.JAYADEVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O H.S.LINGAPPA SHETTY R/AT WARD NO.10 MANGALORE METAL STORE MAIN ROAD HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211.
3 . ATTRI ENGINEERS AND AGENCIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRABHAKAR B.N., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/OP NARASIMHA MURTHY R/AT KOTE, HOLENARSIPURA SLN TEMPLE STREET HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211.
4 . SHRI SHAKUNA RANGANATHA SWAMY ELECTRICALS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B.S.PREMANATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SIDDE GOWDA R/AT SHOP NO.3 AL-YUSUF COMPLEX SAKALESHPURA
20 HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 134.
5 . S.R.M. ELECTRICALS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S.R.MAHESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O S.RAMAIAH R/AT LOHITH NILAYA OPP: INCOME TAX OFFICE BELUR ROAD VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF ENERGY VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BAHVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009
3 . THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009.
4 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER KPTCL, HASSAN – 573 201.
5 . THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE) TR (W AND M) CIRCLE KPTCL, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD. 27.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-5 SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE), TR(W AND M) CIRCLE, KPTCL, HASSAN 573 201. VIZ, TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNX-A, A-1 TO A-14 RESPECTIVELY, WHICH FOLLOWED WITH INVITATION TO BID TERMS OF TENDER NOTIFICATIONS UPLOADED THROUGH E-PORTAL BY THE R-5 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A-15 AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.12754 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI LAKSHMI ENTERPRISES 3RD CROSS, VISHWESHARAIAH STADIUM, ANTHARAGANGE ROAD, MUNESHAWARA NAGARA, KOLAR, KOLAR-563 101, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N. LAKSHMIPRASAD.
2 . SRI RAMA ENTERPRISES GROUND FLOOR, SLV NILAYA, NEAR NANDINI BAR TEKAL MAIN ROAD, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA KOLAR, KOLAR – 563 101,
22 REPT. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N. NARAYANASWAMY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELEC., TRANSMISSION (MAINTENANCE), BMAZ (S), KPTCL, A.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2 . THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.D.J.RAKSHITHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C DTD.2.5.2022, ANNEXUR-C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, DTD.13.5.2022, C7 DTD. MAY OF 2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPER VIDE DTD.3.6.2022 AT ANEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R-1; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE TENDER NOTIFICATION STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION 3 AND 29 OF REGULATIONS READ WITH RULES 2012.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
23 ORDER
All these cases, call in question a solitary kind of work that is sought to be called for in different tender notifications. The work that is sought to be executed by way of these tender notifications is as follows:
‘Tender for providing manpower services for carrying out shift operations and minor maintenance works at 220kV/66/11kV and 66/11Kv stations’.
Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.65 of 2021 are narrated and for the sake of brevity, the respondents being different who are either the KPTCL or the respective ESCOMS who have issued tender notifications, they are referred to as the respondents.
In Writ Petition No.65 of 2021 the petitioners call in question a notice inviting tender dated 10-11-2020 issued by the 1st respondent/Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (‘the Corporation’ for short) calling for applications from eligible tenderers for providing manpower services to carry out shift operations and minor maintenance works at 66 KV sub-stations
24 located at Mallappanahalli, Godabanalu, Vijapura and Nerlagunte. Since the issue involved in all the cases being common, they are taken up together and considered in this common order.
Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel along with Smt. Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned senior counsel along with Smt. D.J.Rakshitha, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4.
The petitioners in all these cases claim to be Electrical Contractors of Class-I and Super Grade Electrical Contractors who have been licensed under the provisions of the Karnataka (Licensing of Electrical Contractors, Special Wiring Permit and Grant of Certificates and Permits to Electrical Supervisors and Wiremen’s) Rules, 2012 (‘the Rules’ for short). It is the contention of the petitioners that in terms of requirement of the Electricity Act,2003 and the Regulations framed thereunder by the Central Electricity Authority as also the State Government, the Super Grade
25 Contractors were entitled to maintain all sub-stations exceeding 33 KV and upto 33 KV Contractors of Class-I were permitted to handle. The tenders were notified by means of e-procurement to provide certain services to 110 KV sub-stations from Class-I Contractors and Super-Grade Electrical Contractors.
The tender notification issued becomes a subject matter of Writ Petition No.202507 of 2017 and this Court interjects further proceedings by grant of an interim order. The 2nd respondent later appears to have communicated to all Super Grade Engineers across the State that the tender notification henceforth will be for arranging civil operations and maintenance of sub-stations of the Corporation and the scope of work would be to provide manpower services for carrying out shift operations and maintenance work without the requirement of licensees. In furtherance of the said communication a tender notification comes to be issued on 13-11-2020, the subject notification, for procuring manpower services for carrying out shift operations and minor maintenance works at 66 KV sub-stations.
26 6. The tender was notified on e-procurement portal of the 1st respondent/ Corporation. The issuance of tender notification calling for works that were hitherto performed by the licensed Contractors of Class-I or Super Grade Contractors being procured through manpower agencies under the impugned notification drove the petitioners to this Court in the subject writ petition. The petitions having been entertained, the proceedings of tender are interjected by this Court and the said interim order is in operation even as on date.
The learned senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that the very procurement and execution of works through the hands of manpower agencies without license or experience of handling shift operations runs counter to the very Regulations framed by the Board which drew its sustenance from the Electricity Act, 2003. He would submit that designing of tender was specifically to exclude Super Grade Contractors from participating in the tender works as the condition in the tender is that the bidder should be a registered
27 manpower supply agency. Electrical contractors like the petitioners have never registered with any manpower agency.
7.1. He would further contend that the tender conditions stipulate requirement of holding the authorization and powers of having past experience in supplying manpower to Government, Governmental agencies or to the establishments of Government. Therefore, the intention of the Tender Inviting Authority was very clear that Super-Grade Contractors or Contractors of Grade-I would be out of the competition to their exclusion, as it is highly improbable of running a manpower agency. He would submit that the tender ought to be quashed on the ground of restrictions placed and is designed to keep away the petitioners from the fray only for the reason that they had filed a writ petition and an interim order of stay is operating. Merely because the petitioners have generated litigation they have been kept out of the competition.
On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Sri D.L.Jagadeesh and Smt. D.J.Rakshitha learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that these very submissions of the learned senior counsel
28 for the petitioners were made before the coordinate Bench calling in question the very tender. The coordinate Bench before whom the tender that was issued by way of circular was called in question has affirmed the said circular and rejected the challenge. All the submissions that the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has now advanced have all been advanced in the said case and considered and the said order of the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.10639 of 2019 is affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.313 of 2020 in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 07-04-2022. They would submit that the issue stands completely covered by the order of the coordinate Bench as affirmed by the Division Bench. Knowing full-well that it is covered, submissions are being made to the contrary and this Court cannot take a different view than the one taken by the coordinate Bench and would submit that the petitions be dismissed, as interim orders are holding the work at the sub-stations and causing great disadvantage to the functioning of sub-stations.
To the said submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would clarify that what is decided by the Court and what
29 is being submitted by him are entirely different, as the Court did not consider the tender being designed to favour a particular tenderer and would submit that the petitions be allowed and the notification be quashed as for it being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Before embarking upon consideration of the case of the petitioners in all these cases, I deem it appropriate to notice the prayer that is sought in other petitions as well:
Writ Petition No.17521 of 2021 seeks to call in question the tender notification dated 8-6-2021 insofar as it concerns 7 packages, in effect, the ground of challenge are identical to what is challenged in Writ Petition No.65/2021, except the fact that they are different tender notifications, but the issue remains the same.
Writ Petition No.17537 of 2021 calls in question an identical notification issued by MESCOM. Except the tender inviting authority all other contentions are same as is contended in Writ Petition No.65 of 2021.
30 Writ Petition No.18522 of 2021 calls in question a notice inviting tender dated 27-09-2021. The grounds urged are skin to what is urged in Writ Petition No.65 of 2021 and other quoted petitions hereinabove. Writ Petition No.18714 of 2021 calls in question a tender notification dated 19-03-2021 issued by KPTCL. The tender is for the purpose of providing man power services for carrying out shift operations. Therefore, the grounds set out are also similar to what is considered in Writ Petition No.65 of 2021. Writ Petition No.19396 of 2021 calls in question a tender notification dated 25-02-2021 to different packages for the same work that is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.65 of 2021. Therefore, the grounds urged are also akin to Writ Petition No.65 of 2021. Writ Petition No.19448 of 2021 calls in question a tender notification dated 11-10-2021. The grounds urged are akin to Writ Petition Nos.65 of 2021 and 17521 of 2021. Writ Petition No.1341 of 2022 calls in question the tender notification dated 27-12-2021 again, for the purpose providing man power, carrying out shift operations and minor maintenance works
31 issued by the KPTCL and the grounds that are urged are similar to what are urged in the aforesaid petitions. Writ Petition No.12754 of 2022 is challenge to the tender notification dated 02.05.2022. The tender is issued for the very same work of providing man power services, to carry out shift operations and minor maintenance works. The grounds are akin to what is urged in Writ Petition No.65 of 2021.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and are therefore, not reiterated. A tender was notified in the year 2017. When applications from tenderers were invited from the Electrical Contractors possessing Class-I or Super-Grade Contractor license, the petitioners, were licensed contractors under the Rules. With the allegation that the petitioners were kept out by restricting them to Super-Grade Electric Contractors, a writ petition was filed before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court. This Court on 21-06-2018
32 granted an interim order of stay of the said notification and its aftermath in Writ Petition No.202507 of 2017. After the interim order being granted, a communication was sent to all the Superintending Engineers of the Corporation in the works and maintenance circle for assimilation of documents for issuance of tender notification to arrange shift operation and maintenance. It is here, in this circular, the manpower agencies were sought to be brought in for the work of shift operations. The circular reads as follows:
“All Superintending Engineers(Elcl.),
Works & Maintenance/Maintenance Circles of
Bangalore/Tumkur/Mysore/Hassan/
Bagalkot/Karburgi Transmission Zones,KPTCL.
Sir,
Sub: Tender Notification Documents for arranging shift Operations and maintenance of 220kV, 110kV and 66kV stations of KPTCL – reg.
Ref: 1. This office order of even no. dated 27.12.2018 regarding nominating Electrical safety officer to supervise the staff deployed by manpower agencies. 2. Corporate Order No.KPTCL/B14/6014/ 2002-03 dated23-01-2019. 3. Note No.B14/6014/2002-03 dated 04.05.2019 approved by Managing Director, KPTCL on 23- 05-2019. -- With reference to the above, I am directed to enclose herewith the Tender Notification Documents for arranging
33 Shift Operations and Maintenance of 220kV, 110kV and 66kV stations of KPTCL. You are requested to take suitable action for entrusting the shift operations and maintenance of KPTCL stations according to the Tender Notification Document wherever needed, to the eligible man power agencies, duly calling tender and finalizing the same with due diligence to KPTCL norms.
In future, calling tenders for arranging Shift Operations and maintenance to KPTCL’s 220kV, 110kV and 66kV Stations will be as per the above Tender Notification Documents only.
The sample format for arriving the minimum bid amount is enclosed herewith for information and needful action.
During the contractual period of such newly awarded station shift duties, the following shall be followed:
(a) As and when the statutory charges are revised, necessary arrangements shall be made to pay such increase from its effective date. (b) Whenever GoK revises the minimum base wage and is found higher than that of the corresponding one indicated in the tender document, necessary arrangements shall be made to pay such increase effective from the date notified by KPTCL.
Any clarifications required regarding the labour related issues (ESI, EPF etc.), minimum wages to be paid from time to time to the manpower Agencies etc., shall be obtained from Asst. General Manager (Services)/Manager (Industrial Relations) and GST issue from FA (A&R) section.
The existing contract agreements with the Agencies in respect of Shift duties of KPTCL Sub-stations shall be continued until their expiry/alternate arrangements are made through tender and awarded.
This shall be followed with immediate effect.”
(Emphasis added)
34 The circular was issued on 04-06-2019 in furtherance of corporate order issued by the Corporation on 23-01-2019. This becomes the subject matter of Writ Petition No.10639 of 2019 filed by the KARNATAKA STATE SHIFT DUTIES AND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. This Court by its order dated 04-09-2019 considering the corporate order dated 23-01-2019 which led to issuance of the communication, has held as follows: “…. …. ….
The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the members of the petitioner-Association are Class-I Technical Contractors and some of them have Super Grade Electrical Contractors License. The members of the petitioner’s- Association are maintaining 66/11 KV Sub-Station Shift And Maintenance work for the Corporation for past more than 20 years. The Energy Department of Government of Karnataka had issued a Gazette Notification dated 01.10.2012, by which four classifications of Licensed Electrical Contractors viz., Super Grade, Class I, Class II and Class III was made. As per the aforesaid Notification, persons holding Super Grade License are eligible to undertake all types of Electrical Installation works of low, medium, high and extra high voltage installation. Class-I license is eligible to undertake electrical installation works of low medium and high voltage installation upto 33KV, whereas, contractors holding Class-II licence are eligible to undertake the aforesaid work upto 650 Volts, whereas, Class III licensees are eligible to undertake the electrical installation works of low voltage upto 250 Volts.
35 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the strength of the aforesaid Gazette Notification, Corporation has issued a Circular dated 23.01.2019, which provides that Class-I Contractor is not eligible to execute the works of 66KV voltage class and above and instructions have been issued to all tendering authorities of the Corporation to insist for Super Grade License. It is averred in the writ petition that the board of the Corporation in its meeting held on 25.06.2016 has held that shift and maintenance work of 66KV and above has to be allotted only to contractors having Super Grade License. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court, in which challenge has been made to the circular dated 23.01.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to Regulation 3.3 of the Regulations framed by Central Electricity Authority under Section 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003 submitted that no person can be designated to operate and carry out the work on electrical lines and apparatus until and unless he possesses a certificate of competency or electric work permit issued by the appropriate government. It is submitted that the impugned Circular is violative of Regulation 3.3 of the Regulations. It is also submitted that only licensed Contractor alone can maintain the Sub-Station through its employees. However, under the impugned Circular any person is now entitled to apply for undertaking the work of maintenance of power stations of the Corporation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the Circular dated 23.01.2019 only pertains to Operation and Maintenance of power stations of the Corporation by shift duties and does not deal with the work on electrical lines and apparatus. Therefore, Regulation 3.3 of the Regulations has no application to the fact situation of the case. It is further submitted that Regulation 7 of the Regulations provides for safety measures for Operation And Maintenance of transmission and distribution systems. The Contractors will have to work under the supervision of Engineers/Supervisors who shall have Diploma in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering from a recognized Institute or University. It is also submitted that the Circular dated 23.01.2019 has been issued in consonance with Regulation 7 of
36 the Regulations and the petitioner is also eligible to apply for the work of Maintenance And Operation of power stations of the Corporation. Therefore, the Circular does not suffer from any infirmity.
I have considered the respective submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Regulation 3.3 and 7 of the Regulations read as under:
Designating person (s) to operate and carry out the work on electrical lines and apparatus-
(1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) No person shall be designated under sub- regulation (1) unless- (i) he possesses a certificate of competency or electrical work permit issued by the Appropriate Government (ii) his name is entered in the register referred to in sub-regulation(2).
Safety measures for operation and maintenance of transmission, distribution systems –
(1) Engineers or supervisors engaged in operation and maintenance of transmission and distribution systems shall hold diploma in electrical, mechanical, electronics and instrumentation Engineering from a recognized institute or university.
(2) The Technicians to assist engineers or supervisors shall possess a certificate in appropriate trade, preferably with a two years course from a Industrial Training Institute recognized by the Central Government or State Government.
(3) Engineers, supervisors and Technicians engaged for operation and maintenance of transmission and distribution systems
37 electric plants should have successfully undergone the type of training as specified in Schedule-II.
Provided that the existing employees shall have to undergo the training mentioned in sub-regulation (3) within three years from the date of coming into force of these regulations.
(4) Owner of every transmission or distribution system shall arrange for training of their personnel engaged in the operation and maintenance of transmission and distribution system in his own institute or any other institute recognized by the Central Government or State Government.
Under the Regulations, the Corporation has nominated Nodal Officers as Electrical Safety Officers for ensuring observance of safety measures for Operation And Maintenance of Sub-Stations as prescribed in the Regulations. Thereafter, the Circular was issued for providing for preparation of tender documents for hiring personnel through manpower agencies for carrying out shift Operations And Maintenance of Sub-Stations under the supervision of the Nodal Officers of the Corporation. It is also pertinent to mention here that there are no electrical installation works to be carried out by manpower agency therefore, Regulation 3.3 of the Regulations do not apply in the fact situation of the case. It is pertinent to note that manpower agencies are not carrying out any electrical installation work either in violation of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Regulations. The qualified Engineers and Diploma holders shall ensure that safety measures for Operation And Maintenance are undertaken as prescribed under Regulation 7 of the Regulations. The Contractors are also not carrying out any maintenance work. It is pertinent to mention here that all the manpower service providers can participate in the tender and the members of the petitioner, which is an Association of electrical contractors shall also be at liberty to participate in the tender as Manpower Service
38 Providers. The Circular issued by the Corporation is in the realm of policy decision. The aforesaid policy decision can neither be termed as arbitrary nor irrational. Therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasis supplied) Paragraphs 2 and 3 capture the case before this Court. The case of the petitioners therein was that its members are Class-I Technical Contractors and Super Grade Electrical Contractors and were aggrieved by the communication or the circular with regard to drawing of personnel from manpower agencies to man the sub- stations. This was contended to be arbitrary, contrary to Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations 3.3 of the Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Authority under Section 177 of the Electricity Act. The contention of the Corporation therein was that Regulation 7 empowers it to deal with the maintenance of sub-stations and did have play in the joints, to get the work done by the manpower agencies as well. Considering the submissions, the coordinate Bench holds that the Corporation has nominated nodal officers as Electrical Safety Officers for ensuring safety measures for operation and maintenance. It is, therefore, the Circular was issued for preparation of tender documents. The Court holds that the action
39 of the Corporation in issuing a communication or passing an order to draw up manpower agencies to carryout shift operations and maintenance works at 66 KV sub-stations cannot be interfered with.
The co-ordinate Bench holds that the action of the Corporation is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable for this Court to interfere. This is tossed by the petitioner before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.313 of 2020. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the impugned tender notification is issued by the Corporation. The tender notification is issued on 10-11-2020, long after the order passed by the coordinate Bench upholding the action of the Corporation in directing all jurisdictional Superintending Engineers to prepare tender documents for drawing of manpower from the manpower agencies. After the finding rendered by the coordinate Bench that it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, the tender notification comes about. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that it is arbitrary and contrary to the Regulations would not hold water at this juncture, as they have all been considered by the coordinate Bench and negatived. The impugned tender notification is in consonance with
40 what is determined by the coordinate Bench. The scope of tender in the impugned tender document reads as follows:
“1. Scope of Tender
The Superintendent Engineer (Elc.), Transmission (W&M) Circle, Davangere KPTCL (Referred to as Employer in these documents) invites tenders from eligible tenderers, for Providing manpower services for carrying out shift operations and minor maintenance works at 66kV Sub-statioins located at Mallappanahalli, Godabanalu, Vijapura and Neralagunte (as defined in these documents and referred to as “the services”) as detailed in Table-1 if Invitation for Tenders (IFT). The trenderers shall submit tenders for the works as detailed in Table-1 of IFT”.
The qualification of a tenderer is dealt with under Clause 3 of the tender. The tenderer should have provided manpower service is what is said to be the necessary qualification. The coordinate Bench considers this very point. Therefore, even if the submission of the learned senior counsel would merit consideration in its first blush, there cannot be deeper delving of such blush, as the coordinate Bench has already considered this, held so, which becomes binding on this Court. The contention advanced by the learned senior counsel would have merited certain consideration to its acceptance or otherwise, but for the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate
41 Bench, as the coordinate Bench considered every aspect of the matter.
The other circumstance is that the order of the coordinate Bench, as observed hereinabove, was challenged in Writ Appeal No.313 of 2020 (KARNATAKA STATE SHIFT DUTIES AND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA). The Division Bench by its judgment dated 07-04-2022 rejects the appeal affirming the order of the coordinate Bench. The observations that are germane and would touch upon the contentions advanced in the case at hand in the judgment of the Division Bench are as follows: “…. …. ….
We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
Regulation 29 of the Regulations reads thus :
Precautions to be adopted by consumers, owners, occupiers, electrical contractors, electrical workmen and suppliers. – (1) No electrical installation work, including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustments to existing installations, except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses, switches, domestic appliances of voltage not exceeding 250V and fittings as in no way alters its capacity or character,shall be carried out upon the
42 premises of or on behalf of any consumer, supplier, owner or occupier for the purpose of supply to such consumer, supplier, owner or occupier except by an electrical contractor licensed in this behalf by the State Government and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency and by a person holding a permit issued or recognized by the State Government.
Provided that in the case of works executed for or on behalf of the Central Government and in the case of installations in mines, oil fields, and railways, the Central Government and in other cases the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt on such conditions as it may impose, any such work described therein either generally or in the case of any specified class of consumers, suppliers, owners or occupiers.
(2) No electrical installation work which has been carried out in contravention of sub- regulation (1) shall either be energized or connected to the works of any supplier.
The aforesaid provision only deals with electrical installation work, only by the electrical contractors who have license. The work of electrical installation is not assigned to the manpower agency but it will be assigned only to the contractors. Under the Regulations the Corporation has nominated Nodal Officers as Electrical Safety Officers for ensuring observance of safety measures for operation and maintenance of substations as prescribed in the Regulations. The circular provides for preparation of tender documents for hiring personnel through manpower agencies for carrying out shift operations and maintenance of substations under the supervision of the Nodal Officers of the Corporation. There are no electrical installation works to be carried out by manpower agency. The learned Single Judge referring to Regulation 3.3 and
43 7 of the Regulations and rightly held that these regulations do not apply to the fact situation of the case. The manpower agencies are not carrying out electrical installation work either in violation of Electricity Act or the Regulations. The qualified Engineers and Diploma holders shall ensure that safety measures for operation and maintenance are undertaken as prescribed under Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
As the appellant/petitioner is also allowed to participate in the tender process as observed by the learned Single Judge, which is based on the statement of objections of second and third respondents, it will not amount to discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellant/petitioner should only have to ensure that they have to be registered with EPF and ESI scheme. Copy of the work orders furnished by second and third respondents will reveal that the tender has been processed and work order has been issued to the electrical contractors also who participated in the tender process. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/petitioner cannot participate in the tender process as they are not registered company has no substance. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all contentions of the appellant/petitioner and rightly dismissed the petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is a reasoned order and does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, writ appeal is dismissed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Division Bench considers that the coordinate Bench referring to Regulations 3.3 and 7 has rightly held that the Regulations do not apply to the fact situation. The manpower agency does not carry out any electrical installation work for the circular to be in violation
44 of Electricity Act or the Regulations. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment supra captures the entire issue and holds that the appellants therein could not have participated in the tender process as it was restricted to manpower agencies and that being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution was negatived.
Therefore, the submissions broadly are all negatived by the coordinate Bench as affirmed by the Division Bench. Regulation 29 which is considered by the Division Bench clearly permits such play in the joints to the Corporation. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Regulations 3.3, 7 and 29 all of which bear consideration at the hands of the coordinate Bench and the Division Bench, would definitely stare at the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, any deeper delving into the matter is not available at the hands of this Court for the afore- quoted becoming a binding precedent for this Court to hold otherwise, failing which, judicial discipline would be shaken, as there is no extenuating circumstance that is projected by the petitioners that would warrant any deviation from what is held by the coordinate Bench or the Division Bench.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions lacking in merit would necessarily meet their dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE
bkp CT:MJ