Ranganath Electricals vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Facts

The petitioner, Ranganath Electricals, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notification dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Transmission Circle (KPTCL), insofar as it pertained to Package-4 and Package-5. The petitioner also challenged a communication dated June 4, 2019, issued by the Deputy General Manager (Technical), KPTCL, to all Superintending Engineers (Electrical) across the state. The respondents include Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) and its officials, as well as the Central Electricity Inspector of Government and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioner sought to quash the tender notification and the communication.

Held

The Court held that the issues involved in the present writ petition were directly and squarely covered by earlier judgments of the High Court, which had been reiterated in a recent judgment. Specifically, the Court referred to the judgment in Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (W.P. No. 65/2017 and connected matters). The Court found that the Division Bench in the cited case had considered Regulations 3.3, 7, and 29 and concluded that these regulations did not apply to the fact situation where manpower agencies were being hired for shift operations and maintenance, not for electrical installation works. The Court also noted that the Division Bench had negatived the contention that the tender process was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court held that the contentions advanced by the petitioner were negatived by the coordinate Bench as affirmed by the Division Bench, and that the present petition lacked merit. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notification dated August 19, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 2, insofar as Package-4 and Package-5, and the communication dated June 4, 2019, issued by Respondent No. 5, are liable to be quashed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the tender notification and the communication were issued in violation of established principles and previous judgments of the High Court. They argued that the tender process, as initiated by the impugned notification and communication, was discriminatory and did not allow eligible contractors to participate. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the issues raised by the petitioner were covered by earlier judgments of the High Court, which had been reiterated in a recent judgment. They contended that the regulations and the fact situation of the case did not support the petitioner's claims, and that the previous judgments were binding precedents.