Vinayaka Electrical Stores vs. Superintending Engineer

Facts

The petitioners, Vinayaka Electrical Stores, Paraavthi Electricals, and Kushal Electricals, are electrical contractors. They challenged tender notifications issued by the Superintending Engineer (Ele), Transmission (W & M) Circle, KPTCL, and the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (KPTCL). The petitioners argued that the tenders were designed to exclude them by requiring bidders to be registered manpower supply agencies, a category they do not fall under. They contended that the scope of work, which involved shift operations and maintenance of sub-stations, was traditionally handled by licensed electrical contractors like themselves. The respondents submitted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, which had affirmed similar tender notifications.

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.65/2021 and connected cases, which was affirmed by a Division Bench. The Court noted that the previous judgments had considered the applicability of Regulations 3.3, 7, and 29 of the relevant rules. It was held that the manpower agencies were not carrying out electrical installation work, and therefore, the tender conditions did not violate the Electricity Act or the Regulations. The Court found that the previous judgments had negated the contention that the tenders were discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court held that the current petitions lacked merit and could not deviate from the binding precedent established by the coordinate and Division Benches. The petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notification, requiring bidders to be registered manpower supply agencies for carrying out shift operations and maintenance of sub-stations, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thereby excluding licensed electrical contractors like the petitioners? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the tender conditions, specifically the requirement of being a registered manpower supply agency with experience in supplying manpower to government entities, were designed to exclude them. They argued that this exclusion was arbitrary and intended to prevent them from participating in tenders for work they were qualified to perform. They also suggested that the exclusion might be retaliatory for previous litigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the submissions made by the petitioners were identical to those made in previous writ petitions and writ appeals, which had been decided against the petitioners. They asserted that a coordinate bench, whose decision was affirmed by a Division Bench, had already ruled on similar tender notifications and found them to be valid. They contended that the manpower agencies were not carrying out electrical installation work, and therefore, the regulations governing such work were not applicable.