Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Licensed Electrical ... vs The Managing Director K P T C L And Escoms on 17 June, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
1:1',
-I COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HG!-E CQfJE2I OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA HIGH CUUKI Ur KAKNAIHRH mun uuum ur !\l-In.:Irn:-uu-- .. .......
13 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 17"' day of June, ' _
mm norram mt JUE1-Ician zsura-.'.' M'
Writ Petition No; 2fQ__:1'6 ofgobs [G;g;i«:i15:.'31VV :1
§_§£[@_N
KARNATAKA S'f'ATE« LIC.l}JNSE D .__ V . V ' '- .
ELECTRICAL CON'?R.»'~'a('§T_ORS- E
ASSOCIATEON ® BANGALORE, ' V _
REPRESENTED BY"iLYAs SAERMASX' '
ELECTRIC-.AIa c0:NT_RAx;"r0R"&sj ._
HON, sEcR*I3f;*AR¥ DISTRIECTV
COMMKVFE-E-KsLEjcA';~. _ " '
GULEUREA. ' H
ski 4JS:~z.fi:1Q_;R
s/.0 pAt;afs1;E1*r*{,T ~
'AGE AF:3OU'i'__:3:3 YEARS-,
oCc:- ELECTEIEAL---£:oNTRAcroE,
M/S; CHANNABASAVESHWARA
' " EELECTRICALS, N0. 1-11/2B,
. __BMAGA'i"i'A.._CGMPOUND,
' 's'rA"E1oN ROAD,
Eumeulgea.
REDDY,
_s/'QNARASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
'ecc: ELECTRECAL CONTRACTORS,
Cl 0 VIRUPAKSHA MANNALIKAR,
NO. 9-125 29 VID}-IYANAGARCOLONY,
BIDAR.
SR1. GORAKNATH SINGH
S/O BESHAMBAR SINGH,
'I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C0§M=€Iji U!' KAKNAIAIKA Nlun Luulu UP nmmlntnnn ruun \..u-um ur nnmu-m-m.-- ........ ........... _.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
KPTCL TRANSMISSIONS (W 85 M}
CIRCLE, GULBURGA.
4. M18. ROYAL ELECTRICALS,
BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SYED SAM: PASHA.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
sxo SYED KHAJA,
SHED NO. 1542/6A/1,
BHAVNAGAR, *~
GULBURGA - 535 105.
5. bus NOBLE ELECT_RICA'LS '
GULBURGA 2 *
BY yrs PROPRIETORE '
SYED SIRAJ PASHA..___*. .. '-
AGED AB-QU-"T 35,_YEARs, _ - ~
s/0 s'2'EDj;:;Ki~LAJA, % "
PLOTNQ. '«%~.8.,';7LN S3. '50. 551,31,
GAr9e':]_3S}iN_AGA'R, GU'LBU--RGA5¢-- 535 105.
5. M/S; :~tAT1o':~jmL E~:,EcTE1Ciu;.s
GULEURCE = :
'BY EROFRIETOE, '
s?._EDE%sALEE-as * PAEHA;
AGED ABOUT so YEARS.
-- » s/o S';l.Ei'"2*K}~iAJA,
» tame. F] KEB. CGLONY,
?--YOLi3.JEWARC§E ROAD,
.5 C-.U13'uRcnA - 535 105.
§.'sfEs;E€?rR1cALs
GUI.BURGA".-3j_Y.iTS PROPRIETOR,
BASHEERUQDIN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
--9/o AEEUL AZEEZ,
_*.PLOfI_' NO. 45.1.5 5?. NO. 43/1,
= _k'~';A_NESHNAGAR,
. CMLBURGA --- 585 105.
wigs. HIGH TECH ELECTRICALS
GULBURGA
H COURT OF KAKNATAKA HIGH Li§.fl#*K_I Q!' RAKNAIAEII !'IIUI1 |..UUl(£ Ur ISAKHAIHAH l"lIUI"l L-Uufil Ur RHKNHIHAH nlun \..vuIu Ur nnnlvnlnnn nlun Vvu;
BY rrs PROPRIETOR,
SANGAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
s_/o SIDDARAMAYYA,
H.910. 1-A, BASAVESHWARA COLONY,"
GULBURGA - 585 105. __
[By Sri. N. K113" hnananda
Sri, K. Dhiraj Kumar, Adv. for Appa
THIS WRIT PE'I'm0N ISFILED UNDER._A RTIC!LES 226 AND
227 OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF"*«INDIA PRAYING T0g QUASH T}-IE
QUASH THE: ORDER Q1,1:2QG:8,*PASSE£lI)"$Y..~'I'I~lE R3, THE
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EI..EI;:yT--RANsMIssioN {W 85 M)
CIRCLE KPTCL GULBARGA-Vl'§Z)E§.ANNEX¥JRE_ - E, E1, E2, E3 AND
E4, ANNEXURE - E, m', 211;2:20o8;v..m:s:ExURE - E1, DT.
21.1.2008, ANNEXURE"-"-E2, L7r;.__21.v1.200s, ANNEXURE - E3,
GULBARGA {:rr.2:.1.2oo8 ANl3'4.ANNEXUI~3'E - E4, GULBARGA mi
21.1.2008 AND afr*c,, _ ' '
'{'I~II:Vt'.'~__?f;,o'_'_'£'1;»'_I'I<).i€i cor§i1N§}'o'N Roi? PRELIMINARY HEARING B'
c3Ro:;x>.1fr;;s..ooA&<;;:f1t1~:a_;:ouRr---Mam: THE FOLLOWING:
sT fonnmR
Wi*i§" " ' the Karnataka State Licensed
Association and a few other
' ~oé'zn11'aotors, who may or may not be members of
" .tf1é jjotitioner-association, who are aggieved by
action on the part of the third respondent»
* 'supexintendmg engineer, KPFCL, Gulbarga, who had occasion to pass orders as per Annexure---}i3, E1 to E4 to y, l\II I EYE! l'I '|u\I\J!\E Val! 5 the writ petition, which, it appears, has enuresipto the benefit of the respondents 4 to 8, who also be electrical contractors. It is possible that V2.
to 7 and respondents 4 to 8 AV contracts for executing worIts".s, ° "of Gulbarga Electricity supp1y"c§mpany «goesoomjr
2. Under the third respondent -
an officer ofwtlae proceedings l\l"'I!\l'l"'l!.l"|l\l"| rII\Jl"l 1.-\II,n§l \II" nrlnlirllrlnri l'!I\7!"l UVVJVI Ur RMEIIHIHBH naurz uvuiu 'J!' KMRIVMIMRM ruun wuun: \Il Iuwwuir-ur-nus an against the '-.a._' which was for examiI1Ving* = t black-Jisting of respondents?! to 8 contractors in whose favour electrvicai' tworks:VCsr;._ttjettentrusted for execution by "context of certain allegations V' *_t11ey had while executing earlier false and fabricated documents before ~ authorities, particularly in the matter of having finder the Employees Provident Fund Act and . icoxnplgiance under the said Act etc. fl/_.
6
3. Under the impugned orders, the third reeggondent has dropped proceedings in a summary after noticing that the complainant one Sfiriiyéisir en'. of 1-Iubli Electricity Supply remained absent and therefere tiiei'eompieintV"ie and the enquiry is dropped} _V V 4». The enquiry to a or orders passed by this court i;1_WP writ petition had H COUKY 05 KAXNATAKA HIGH §QU'K¥ U?' KAKDSAIAIUK FEEVH LUUKI U!' EARN!-\II-\iU-I HIGH LUUKI U?' IERKNAJRRA H¥K3'H BUUKI ur ERKNRIAKA HIGH QUU been filed by the ._;4__to 8, questioning the order dated' " Superintending Engineer, the petitioners therein and from entitlement of any respondent-company. This court in or dated 29-9-2006, disposed of the i"*n'1.atter petition and remanded the matter
- -4i.i.i':;n1f§i'-.for the that the petitioners therein had not proper opportunity before black-listing thezzn ' the authority concerned to hoid a de novo {V 7 enquiry and to pass appropriate orders within twelve Wwks from the date of receipt of a .c1If§ier, which, according to Sri N K Gupta, respondents 1 to 3, had been 2 AV eight weeks.
5. It may be flfioticc before the authority had ' A which came to be quashed by was remanded in n uuunl vr nnnwnimun HIUI1 Lkfulfii U!' KRKNAEAKA I'HC:il"l COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKIX HKSH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CCU terms of the "1258? of 20%, certain the vigilance cell of the _'gc1_1e izmao the activities of respondmts {ms fact noticed that they had ucbrifixicus pifacfice and Whiie it called fof "jg-1c1:io11, had gone to the extent of actions had caused considerable ioss
- jVl;o_:_the and also that some fraud had taken place of remittance of provident fund of the h that such malpractice could: be prevalent in Jfkyt u.--us: Ila-'u:r-"Ir! l'II\Il"l lpflll 8 other electricity supply companies or in other of the very supply company and there was L"
better vigil and scrutiny into such matt«m_:g;g"':
of the report dated 4-12-zzooo {t"4.9Vifhe'4~.._ writ petition] submitted by: the Efizeoutiveop of very supply company.
6. Petitioners court contending, inter alia, that of the proceeding' s 4. 8 was not warranted; by the offioer cortcerned that this court set aside the remitted the matter for a only for the purpose of the respondents 4 to 8, there is Hose the enquiry without a proper . and ofithe premise that the complainant was not is also urged that dropping of the enquiry V. against such errant contractors who had HER.'-I Ffillfl? fit Irnnhlavnvn nuns. 4...... nun A--- =«- 9 indulged in all sorts of misconduct, falsifying of documents and certificates will only -.o'n;V'euch peopie and an affront to fair-play and Hie' urged that interest of oolnpetition from malpractice. ~ ._ _
7. Notice and they have entered.. counsel.
8. for the respondents T can bind the first respondent n mvun: ur nnnrurunnn ruvn \..v§..u§: Ur l\.HIuIHIH!\H nlurl Luv!" U!" IKHKIVU-\IAi\8 mum HUUKI ur IKAKNAII-\i\A Hlufl L.UUNl Ur naxlvnlann nlun uuui I to 3 Whflfi impugned orders, on the 'V face ofltliem, fi1ay._ sostainable for the simple reason iiszitller speaking orders nor the omcer has to the directions issued by this H V' courtddhéfor a fresh enquiry into the matter. Also H K the first respondent»»I@'I'CL is not a partymespondent to this writ _pet_'_ition and no @/ I\P'\l\I'I'\Il'\I\l"| llI\?Il \uI'hll-Jl\i 'Gall IV-l"'Il\I'l"'\IJ'I.I\f'* ill'-'00 1Il"|-P'-V' II \l\I'Jl'\i VII I'l"II\I"lTIl'II\f" Ii I\llI VII I'\"\l\I'I'IIl"\l'\J"'I I'II\7II '\-u\I\i!\I \II'" I\f'Ifli'l'lI.f'iI'\I1 nlun Va\J"\Jl\I 'If 11 before this court complaixling the quality of the order passed by the third respondent.
10. Statement of objections of respondents 4 to 8.
11. Sri Dhiraj Kama;
respondents 4 to 8' ttxere was no record of ;+An.I1exu1'e---G, which the to the authority;
that a chief engneer is of no was pending before the third engneer, KPTCL, VthatV:a5'ss1§:.:x1iI1g that the complaint in the nature had been lodged by the fi£'St petitioner, it ._ consequence in the proceeding before the iespondent.
v Yet another objection raised on behalf of the respondents 4 to 8 is that when the petitioners have no V II %¥'IaI'III 1-I III"II'lI«I"l nu:-an au- 12 locus even to maintain the writ petition, but nevertheless seeldng for some relief in the writ petition the interest of the respondents 4 to 8 to 3 - public authorities -~ a character of a public interest litigation court could not entertain
13. In the light of submissions and the petition and objections"'fi1gg_;i;.t;1e up for disposal and disposed it
14. 'i'he" pre'.;m_."]§E.i"AVa'rJ:-,~..A_§'ojection that the writ petition is not oil' ttie premise that the petitioners have if """ H a writ petition of this nature does not A for long. I say so for the reason that the fist pétitioiiera-sssociation and other petitioners, who are all is electric: oontractors in the field, can definitely be said to an interest to ensure that the bona fide, scrupulous V "and law abiding contractors remain in the field, they Vt .. _-.. ---.. can 1334!! dhfillfl Constitution of India.
14
16. Whether or not the first petitioner mm a complaint in the nature of Annexure-G, if ttm interested in ensuring that the field" __ amongst the electrics}. contractots and sealed of any .V tile filed and if such people to thst extent they to to the notice of the court authority, which is purpose and object of the 1'7. the Writ petition Iwrtakes the VV:pub1ic"...ii3te1sst litigation and this court not the cause, also fails, for the reason petitions, this court essentially exercises V judicial review of administrative action or Iegsstse action. The judicial review of the action of the of the 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of When electricity supply yo
---_.-. __..s---- nun u-AnsIl1*lIIfl I1If.'..I.I l"f'\IIn 15 company and its ofiicers exercising such p0V.'t3I' and functions exercisable by the State and itsflfie power and function is part of the power" of the state and they became T. V by this court. The subject _1t1atter_:ofz essentially an order exercising such got touch as the rights of the pet_itione;fs_ the respondents
18. this court is that the thin} public fimction and authority V proper attention to the " _ maIv}H°' whioh'vthe matter should have been gone about sacrificed the public interest by passing orders. It is not in conformity with the directiotxs issued by this court in the earlier round of writ petition, though the petitioners herein themselves were __i1ot parties to that writ petition. W ' COt.|R'!' Oi'-' KARNATAKA HIGH count at KARNATAKA mm-I rfinmrr n: sm:m.m1-mm uuzu r-aim-r hr. vnnun-rn Inn us:-u N-.....-.. M. .,............. 16
19. It is not in dispute that the respondents 4 to 8 had been once black-listed by the third respondent having regard to their past conduct regarding obligations for getting some work and in the matter of of certain certificates etc. It appears, t31.e'V_"_:
caused the enquiry into the made by the applicants Vo:%4__res;Aii}:Jidents,4%- found that the report; 'edizerse ,5 and therefore passed the order That order was questioned jdersons in WP No 12587 of find merit in the matter so mneh, foamjd "the order suffers for Want of giving A. ;n1'ty"irrthe petitioners therein to present their only on this ground of want of proper the matter had been remanded with a to the third respondent to hold proper enquiry accord an opportunity to the respondents 4 to 8 herein. hold proper enquiry and then pass orders. In the $/..
I' {'IE\3I"I \,.\J|.fi|[,E 'Jr I'm"I"I"n'\'I' ."',.. ',~,,',.,_ __ '_ ____ __ ___ 17 light of such direction and in the background the__matter going back to the authority for a de novo enqt1'.5I'y'_the conduct and claims of rwpondextts 4 to or absence of the complainant lossaéfaxiy j x matter is seized before?' respondent] and it is respondent to act ir1':'a.. and to complete the to its logical conclusion Laz"f5oi*t:&it."'}n.__.:§n«1idway on technical ' " authority for avafling certain contracts. The M ground and fog' the reason that the complama' close the enq1111y' for such "of" the complaint has already eewedt _; ' _o'f'tI1e' complainant does not make any V. own» tehefl enqu1ry' . The matter is one essermaJIy' in the context of the injury to H V' }:eubli(:"*-- at large, which may inevitably the and justification for black-listing some who have put forth wrong claim before the ._. ... M__ ....... ..--..-........ GHQ .5...-us .-munanm rm? uanntawnwa Litfiu (".f\Ifi 18 enquiry not so much about the complainant's but is only about the conduct of respondents 4 to 8 and their claims. If the electricity Supply company can get information and data with regard to such conduct and 'Own and through its vigilance cell,' that can A into and if same is made respondents 4 to 8 also;
should be dismissed and of the absence of the of in fact is in a way avoidance..ofI.issued by this court in petition for holding an enquiry. Under' the the enquiry is aborted and not ti1at"as of the enquiry it was found that the f should be dropped. Black-iiseng an erring ._ eontraac_torsl'.;'or unscrupulous contractors is always in the interest. While that can be done, violation of the 'A pzjinciiiles of natural jusfice should nevertheless be avoided and for this limited purpose the matter had been remitted and not for dropping the enquiry and close 19 the enquiry in an zmeeremonious manner withont--._hoIding a proper enquiry. " V. A
20. In the wake of above orders at Axmexure-E, E1 to they are accordingly an "ax "of A certiorari. Third or ofiieer that may may hold proper enquiry' into all aspects of the matter, all persons who who are desirous of and to pass orders in accordahee with and s may be warranted in the facts '~ A the case. It is made clear that the has to inevitably take note of the materials .' not already on record and cannot ignore them. regard to the fact that the matter has been going "It before courts and other authorities for some length ' K of time, it is impressed upon the respondents 1 to 3 that We 20 the enquiry should be completed expeditiously at any rate not later than six months fiom the date of "of a copy of this order.
respondents 1 to 3 should be are pending against respondents 8[V,'tii;,:
transactions. ' . .
2 1. Writ petition is
22. Rule meet am mama
23. It is observations made in this ordervtvvare étoxzwvlgf of this writ petition and cannot time on the independent proceedings v _ of befofe respondent.
Sd/-
Judge fpjk, It is only
4.'...-mm 4-nu -an unlnal-A all i.lIl"l_l l"f\!IB1 llgfigi gq$ggg'g. fij .'.;'a_.g;-gag 3-' 3...;-a --.m..u-_-mu n----- ------ -