Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Shift Duties And ... vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 313/2020 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN :
Karnataka State Shift
Duties and Maintenance
Electrical Contractors
Welfare Association (R)
Represented by its President
(Reg. No.DRB-1/260/2016-17)
No.88, 3rd Main Road
3rd Cross, MEI Layout
Bagalagunte
Bangalore - 560 073. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri. Srinivas K, Adv.,)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka
Energy Department
Represented by its
Principal Secretary
Vikas Soudha
-2-
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited
Represented by its
Managing Director
Kaveri Bhavan
Kempegowda Road
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Director (A & HR)
KPTCL, Kaveri Bhavan
Kempegowda Road
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Chief Electrical Inspector
Govt. of Karnataka
KSCC Building
Opp. To Orian Mall
Dr. Rajkumar Road
Bangalore - 560 055. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, AGA, for R-1
Smt. Rakshitha D.J., Adv., for R-2 & 3
R-4 served)
---
This Writ Appeal is field under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act with a prayer to set aside
the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P. No.10639/2019(GM-TEN) dated
04.09.2019 and consequently allow the writ petition
by granting all the reliefs as prayed therein and etc.
-3-
This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR,
J. delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
This intra Court Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2019 passed in W.P. No. 10639/2019 wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. Appellant had filed the writ petition seeking issue of writ of certiorari quashing the circular dated 23.01.2019 issued by third respondent (Annexure - L) and for a writ of mandamus seeking direction to second and third respondents to consider only licensed electrical contractors to perform the work of shift operation and maintenance duties in all the sub-stations of the respondent - KPTCL as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, and the Rules framed there under.
-4-
2. Heard the arguments of Sri. Srinivas K., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned AGA, for first respondent and Smt. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for second and third respondents.
3. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for second and third respondents that the tender process is over, work order has been issued and therefore, the writ appeal has rendered infructuous. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that he has not challenged the tender process but he has sought for quashing of the circular dated 23.01.2019 issued by third respondent and therefore, the appeal will not become infructuous if the tender process is over and work orders are issued. He further contends that the decision of the meeting held on 09.11.2018 is contrary to the provisions of the Central Electricity -5- Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 (for short `the Regulations'). He contends that the Act and the Rules make provisions for maintenance and carrying out electricity works only by the contractors holding license issued by the fourth respondent and therefore, the second and third respondents have exceeded in their jurisdiction and limit by taking a decision during the meeting held on 09.11.2019 and issuing circular dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure - L). He contends that there is no provision in the Act and the Rules to entrust such crucial electrical works to outside private manpower agencies which lacks any experience, skill and authority as provided in Rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. It is his further submission that based on the conditions imposed in the circular dated 23.01.2019 issued by third respondent - KPTCL anybody and everybody who is running a manpower -6- agency are eligible to apply for the shift and maintenance work in KPTCL power stations. Regulation 29 of the Regulations 2010 prescribes that any works related to electricity shall be carried out and entrusted to contractors holding the license and therefore, the decision taken during the meeting held on 09.11.2018 and also the circular issued by the second and third respondents dated 23.01.2019 do not stand the scrutiny of law. It is his further submission that electrical licensed contractors have been doing the aforesaid 66KV sub-station contract shift and maintenance works in KPTCL for the last more than 20 years without any remarks and lapses and any deviation from such established procedures and modalities will amount to discrimination which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is his further submission that the petitioners cannot participate in the tender process as they are -7- not registered company. It is his further submission that the learned Single Judge has not considered all these aspects and therefore, the impugned order requires interference.
4. Learned counsel for second and third respondents apart from supporting the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has contended that the petitioners can also participate in the tender process and there is no requirement of any registered company as submitted. The only requirement is that the manpower agency should be registered under EPF and ESI schemes. It is his further submission that the manpower agency will look into the shifts and minor maintenance work in KPTCL substations under the Nodal Officers who have been nominated as Electrical Safety Officers for employees of the KPTCL. No installation work has been entrusted to the manpower -8- agencies and therefore, there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Electricity Act and Regulations.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
6. Regulation 29 of the Regulations reads thus :
29. Precautions to be adopted by consumers, owners, occupiers, electrical contractors, electrical workmen and suppliers. - (1) No electrical installation work, including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustments to existing installations, except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses, switches, domestic appliances of voltage not exceeding 250V and fittings as in no way alters its capacity or character, shall be carried out upon the premises of or on behalf of any consumer, supplier, owner or occupier for the purpose of supply to such consumer, supplier, owner or occupier -9- except by an electrical contractor licensed in this behalf by the State Government and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency and by a person holding a permit issued or recognized by the State Government.
Provided that in the case of works executed for or on behalf of the Central Government and in the case of installations in mines, oil fields, and railways, the Central Government and in other cases the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt on such conditions as it may impose, any such work described therein either generally or in the case of any specified class of consumers, suppliers, owners or occupiers.
(2) No electrical installation work which has been carried out in contravention of sub-regulation (1) shall either be energized or connected to the works of any supplier.
- 10 -
7. The aforesaid provision only deals with electrical installation work, only by the electrical contractors who have license. The work of electrical installation is not assigned to the manpower agency but it will be assigned only to the contractors. Under the Regulations the Corporation has nominated Nodal Officers as Electrical Safety Officers for ensuring observance of safety measures for operation and maintenance of substations as prescribed in the Regulations. The circular provides for preparation of tender documents for hiring personnel through manpower agencies for carrying out shift operations and maintenance of substations under the supervision of the Nodal Officers of the Corporation. There are no electrical installation works to be carried out by manpower agency. The learned Single Judge referring to Regulation 3.3 and 7 of the Regulations and rightly held that these regulations do not apply to the fact
- 11 -
situation of the case. The manpower agencies are not carrying out electrical installation work either in violation of Electricity Act or the Regulations. The qualified Engineers and Diploma holders shall ensure that safety measures for operation and maintenance are undertaken as prescribed under Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
8. As the appellant/petitioner is also allowed to participate in the tender process as observed by the learned Single Judge, which is based on the statement of objections of second and third respondents, it will not amount to discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellant/petitioner should only have to ensure that they have to be registered with EPF and ESI scheme. Copy of the work orders furnished by second and third respondents will reveal that the tender has been processed and work order has been issued to the
- 12 -
electrical contractors also who participated in the tender process. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/petitioner cannot participate in the tender process as they are not registered company has no substance. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all contentions of the appellant/petitioner and rightly dismissed the petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is a reasoned order and does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LRS.