Sree Ekanatheswari Electricals vs. Karnataka Power Tranamission

Facts

The petitioners, four electrical contractors, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a tender notification issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) and its Superintending Engineer. The tender was for arranging shift operations and maintenance of KPTCL's substations. The petitioners contended that the tender process was flawed and discriminatory. The respondents, KPTCL and its officials, argued that the tender was issued in accordance with established procedures and regulations. The High Court noted that the issue was directly covered by previous judgments of the same court.

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by earlier judgments of the High Court, including a recent decision in Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The Court reiterated the findings of the coordinate bench and division bench, which had previously held that the relevant regulations (specifically Regulations 3.3 and 7) did not apply to the engagement of manpower agencies for shift operations and maintenance, as these agencies were not carrying out electrical installation work. The Court found that the circular and tender did not violate the Electricity Act or the regulations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the participation of the petitioners in the tender process negated the contention of discrimination. Therefore, the Court concluded that the writ petitions lacked merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notification issued by KPTCL for arranging shift operations and maintenance of substations is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioners? 2. Whether the circular dated 04-06-2019, which led to the tender notification, is in violation of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply) General Regulations, 2000, as contended by the petitioners? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the tender process was flawed and restricted participation in a manner that was discriminatory. They contended that the circular and subsequent tender notification were in violation of the Electricity Act and relevant regulations, as manpower agencies were being engaged for work that should have been assigned to licensed electrical contractors. They relied on previous judgments where similar tenders were challenged. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the tender was issued in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. They contended that the work involved was for shift operations and maintenance, which could be undertaken by manpower agencies under the supervision of qualified personnel, and that the regulations cited by the petitioners did not apply to the factual matrix of the case. They also pointed out that the petitioners themselves were allowed to participate in the tender process.