Banashankari Electricals Davanagere vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Kptcl

Facts

The petitioner, Banashankari Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notification dated August 27, 2021, issued by the Superintending Engineer (Ele), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL). The petitioner sought to quash the notification and direct the respondents to issue a new one in accordance with specific regulations. The core of the dispute revolves around the eligibility criteria for participating in tenders for shift operations and maintenance of KPTCL substations. The petitioner contended that the tender notification unfairly restricted participation. The matter was heard by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the issues raised by the petitioner were squarely covered by earlier judgments of the same court, including a recent decision in Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The court noted that a coordinate bench, affirmed by a division bench, had already considered the applicability of Regulations 3.3, 7, and 29. It was held that these regulations did not apply to the fact situation where manpower agencies were being hired for shift operations and maintenance, as these agencies were not carrying out electrical installation work. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions, stating that the previous judgments established that such tenders, when restricted to manpower agencies, did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized judicial discipline and the binding nature of precedents, finding no extenuating circumstances to deviate from the established rulings. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notification dated 27.08.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent, is liable to be quashed for being contrary to Regulations 3 and 29 of the relevant rules. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the tender notification was issued in violation of Regulations 3 and 29. They contended that the tender process, as notified, was discriminatory and did not adhere to the established regulations governing such procurements by KPTCL. They sought a direction for a fresh tender notification that complies with the prescribed rules. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, KPTCL, through their counsel, argued that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court. They relied on the High Court's own precedents, specifically citing the case of Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (W.P. No. 65/2021), which had dealt with similar contentions regarding tender eligibility and the applicability of regulations.