Sree Ekanatheswari Electricals vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission

Facts

The petitioner, Sree Ekanatheswari Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging tender notifications dated August 11, 2021, issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), represented by its Superintending Engineer. The petitioner sought to quash these notifications and direct the respondents to issue new notifications strictly in accordance with Regulation 3 and 29 of the relevant Regulations and Rules. The core of the dispute revolves around the eligibility criteria for participating in tenders for shift operations and maintenance of KPTCL substations. The petitioner contends that the tender notifications, by restricting eligibility or by their nature, violate established regulations and constitutional principles. The matter is being decided based on previous judgments of the High Court on similar issues.

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by earlier judgments of the High Court, including a Division Bench decision in Sharada Electricals and another Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The Court found that the Regulations concerning electrical installation work (specifically Regulation 3.3 and 7) do not apply to the engagement of manpower agencies for shift operations and maintenance of substations. The Division Bench had previously held that manpower agencies are not carrying out electrical installation work, and therefore, the circulars or tender conditions allowing their participation or specifying eligibility criteria for them do not violate the Electricity Act or the Regulations. The Court also noted that Regulation 29 provides the Corporation with sufficient flexibility. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions, which were negatived by the coordinate and Division Benches. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notifications issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.08.2021, are liable to be quashed for being contrary to Regulation 3 and 29 of the KPTCL Regulations and Rules, 2012? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the tender notifications are not in strict accordance with Regulation 3 and 29. They contend that the nature of the work, which involves shift operations and maintenance of substations, should be awarded to licensed electrical contractors, and the inclusion of manpower agencies or specific eligibility criteria might be discriminatory or violate established norms. They rely on the principle that tender conditions must adhere to statutory regulations and constitutional guarantees of fairness. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, rely on previous judgments of the High Court, including a Division Bench decision, which have affirmed the Corporation's discretion under Regulation 29 and held that the Regulations concerning electrical installation work do not apply to manpower agencies engaged for shift operations and maintenance. They argue that the tender process, as conducted, is permissible and does not violate any statutory provisions or constitutional rights.