S M Electricals Ranebennur vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Kptcl

Facts

The petitioner, S.M. Electricals, represented by its proprietor Abdul Gafar urf Saleem Mirchwale, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notification dated 25.08.2021 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Ele), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), Davanagere. The petitioner sought to quash this notification and sought directions for the respondents to issue a new tender notification strictly in accordance with Regulation 3 and 29 of the relevant Regulations read with Rules 2012. The KPTCL, represented by its Managing Director and Superintending Engineer, were the respondents. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the terms of the tender notification which they believed were restrictive and potentially discriminatory.

Held

The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were directly and squarely covered by earlier judgments of the Karnataka High Court, which had been reiterated in the recent judgment in Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The Court noted that a Division Bench had considered Regulations 3.3, 7, and 29 and found that these regulations did not apply to the fact situation where manpower agencies were not carrying out electrical installation work. The Court found that the previous judgments had negatived contentions regarding discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court concluded that any deeper delving into the matter was unwarranted, as the prior judgments constituted binding precedent. The writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notification dated 25.08.2021 issued by the second respondent is liable to be quashed as being arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the tender notification is in accordance with Regulation 3 and 29 of the Regulations read with Rules 2012? The petitioner argued that the tender notification was restrictive and sought directions for a compliant tender. The respondents contended that the matter was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically citing the case of Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (W.P. No. 65/2021) and connected matters, which they argued had already decided similar issues against the petitioners. They relied on the reasoning in these prior judgments to support their position that the current tender was valid and the petition lacked merit.