Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Licensed vs Bangalore Electricity Supply ... on 18 January, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
W.A.No.561 OF 2020(GM-TEN)
C/W
W.A.No.562 OF 2020(GM-TEN),
W.A.No.563 OF 2020(GM-TEN)
IN W.A.No.561 OF 2020(GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED
ELECTRICAL CONSTRACTORS ASSOCATION (R)
NO.33 AVENUE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
(REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR N. GUDDAD)
2. M/S SRI RANGANATHA ELECTRICALS
NO.50 10 TH CROSS 2ND MAIN
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
LAGGERE
BANGALORE-560 058
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI VIMALA RAJU)
3. M/S MAXWELL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING UNIT AT SY NO.154, KODIGEHALLI
2
INDUSTRIAL AREA MACHOHALLI GATE
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 091
ALSO AT
SY NO.132, BALADARE VILLAGE
UDAYAPURA, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 111
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER SRI. PRATHAP S. N)
4. M/S RAJA ELECTRICAL WORKS
N. R EXTENSION
BEHIND BESCOM OFFICE
CHINTAMANI-563 125
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI. RAJANNA. N)
5. M/S SUMA ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERS
NO.V-17 INDUSTRIAL AREA
TAMAKA
KOLAR-563 101
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR:
SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY )
6. M/S KAVYA ELECTRICALS
LIG 101,3RD MAIN, 11TH CROSS
KHB COLONY
KANAKAPURA TOWN -562117
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI. BALU NAIK)
7. M/S SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY ELECTRICALS
BATASANDRA KEMPANDA DODDERI POST
KORA HOBLI
TUMUKUR DISTRICT-572 102
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR:
SRI. B. K. ASHOK KUMAR)
3
8. M/S SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICALS
12TH CROSS SRINAGARA
S. S. MUTT ROAD
TUMKUR-572104
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI SIDDARAMAIAH)
9. M/S K. M. ENTERPRISES
OFFICE NO.332, 5 TH MAIN
2ND CROSS, K. S. TOWN
BANGALORE-560 060
(REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI K. M. NATARAJ)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM)
CORPORATE OFFICE,
K. R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
(REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)
2. GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICAL
PROCUREMENT, BESOCM
OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE
PROCUREMENT SECTION
BESCOM, K. R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
3. SRI. G. ASHOK KUMAR
DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL), BESCOM
OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, BELAKU BHAVAN
K. R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
4
4. SRI. MAHENDRA JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GOVT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
BY SMT. VANI H., AGA FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.11864/2020 DATED
10/11/2020 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO STAY ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS OF AWARDING OF TENDERS OR CONTRACTS OR
WORK ORDERS IF ANY AWARDED, AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDERS.
IN W.A.No.562 OF 2020(GM-TEN),
BETWEEN:
1. SRI AADHISHAKTHI ELECTRICALS
PROPRITORSHIP
ANJANADRINILAYA
SRI. ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD
NEAR SUBASHNAGAWR
KYATHASANDRA
TUMAKRUU 572 194
(REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI SIDDARAJU N )
5
2. SRI SHILPA ELECTRICALS
PROPRIETORSHIP
SUPER GRADE GOVT ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS
LAKKENAHALLI KUDURHOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK- 562 120
REAMANAGARA DIST
(REPREESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI RAJANNA)
3. R.S. INRASTRUCTURE
PROPRIETORSHIP
#3060, MCC 'B' BLOCK
8TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS
DAVANAGERE-577 001
(REPRESENT ED BY ITS PROPRIETOR:
SRI. RAJU G. S)
4. SRI. MARULASIDEESHWARA ELECTRICALS
PROPRIETORSHIP
FORT ROAD
SANTHEBENNUR - 577 552
(REPRESENTD BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI M. JAYADEVA KUMAR)
5. SRINIVASA ELECTRICALS
PROPRIETORSHIP
NO. 876/4, JAYANAGAR C BLOCK
NITUVALY,
DAVANGERE- 577 004
(REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI R. VENKATESH NAIK)
6. SRI GONIBASAVESHWARA ELECTRICALS
PROPRIETORSHIP
NO. 750/A, 12TH WARD
MYLAR ROAD
HARAPANAHALLI-583 131
6
(REPRESENT ED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI MANJUNATH P )
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
AT K.R. CIRCLE
BANGALORE- 560 001
(REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR )
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER ELE.,
PROCUREMENT
CORPORATE OFFICE
4TH FLOOR
K.R. CIRCLE
BANGALORE- 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.11875/2020
DATED 10/11/2020 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO STAY ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF AWARDING OF TENDERS OR
CONTRACTS OR WORK ORDERS IF ANY AWARDED, AND PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDERS.
7
IN W.A.No.563 OF 2020(GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S GEETHA ELECTRICALS STORES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
NO 2, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560026,
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
S. KESHAV
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF POWER AND ENERGY,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE- 560001,
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
OFFICE AT K. R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001,
REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
OFFICE AT K. R. CIRCLE,
8
BENGALURU-560001,
REP BY GENERAL MANAGER (ELE)
PROCUREMENT, BESCOM
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI H., AGA FOR R1;
BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/11/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.12404/2020 (GM-TEN) AND TO ALLOW
THE INTERIM PRAYER AS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for preliminary hearing
with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are
heard finally.
2. The appellants in W.A. No.561/ 2020 and 562/2020
herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.11864/2020 and
W.P.No.11875/2020 respectively and the appellant in
W.A.No.563/2020 is the petitioner in W.P.No.12404/2020.
They are aggrieved by order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge by which interim prayer sought by the
petitioners/appellants has been declined.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the first petitioner in
W.A.No.561/2020 is a registered association of Licenced
Electrical Contractors registered under the provisions of the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, while other
petitioners/appellants in WA No.561/2020, W.A. No.562/2020
and the petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.563/2020 are licenced
electrical contractors. They have filed the writ petition
assailing the tender notifications as per the list at Annexure - F
and have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing respondents No.1 and 2 to call for tenders as per the
entries and circular produced at Annexure - A bearing No.CYS
64 dated 18.09.2012, at Annexure - B bearing No. BESCOM
/CGM (Opl) /15-16/CYS 162 dated 30.03.2016 in relation to
each one of the tender works as contained in Clause No.1.2 of
the tender notifications, which have been produced at
Annexure - F, series of all 18 notifications dated 05.10.2020
to the writ petitions.
4. The petitioners sought interim stay of all further
process pursuant to the issuance of 18 tender notifications at
Annexure - F dated 05.10.2020. The learned Single Judge,
after considering the submission as well as the judicial
precedent cited by the respective parties by his order dated
10.11.2020 declined to grant any interim order. While doing
so, the learned Single Judge has opined "Courts cannot
regulate the business plans of State owned enterprises". Being
aggrieved, the appellants/petitioners have preferred these
appeals.
5. We have heard learned counsel Shri. D.R.
Ravishankar appearing for the petitioners/appellants in
W.A.No.561/2020 & W.A. No.562/2020 and Shri. R. Kalyan
learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant in
W.A.No.563/2020 and learned Senior counsel Shri. S S
Nagananda for caveator/respondents No.1 and 2 and perused
the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention
to various clauses of the tender notification, which is produced
at Annexure-F and contended that the tender notifications are
not work specific, but, they are price specific, inasmuch as
the tender notifications intend to call from respective highest
bidders to engage in the works to be stipulated by respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 for a period of two years in respect of specific
area. That in the absence of any specific work being indicated
while calling for tenders except on the basis of fixation of
price, for instance upto Rs.150 crores, is not in accordance
with law as well as the policies, which have been envisaged
earlier by respondents No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners next
contended that the intention of the respondent in calling for
such a tender is only to favour a few selected bidders. As a
result, individual contractors such as the petitioners, who have
always been carrying out works for respondents No.1 and 2
would be eliminated from making their bids. It is further
submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have
considered the case of the appellants/petitioners and granted
interim stay of the tender notifications, as the petitioners have
a good case on merits and they had demonstrated as to how
the impugned tender notifications were not in accordance with
law.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that
the learned Single Judge has not considered the references to
the judicial precedent cited, which have a bearing on the
matter for grant of interim order. In the circumstances it was
urged, this Court may consider the case of the appellants and
grant an interim order pending disposal of the writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondents
No.1 and 2 contended that there is no merit in these appeals,
and that the writ petitions are still pending final adjudication.
The petitioners could make their submissions before the
learned Single Judge, as to how the impugned tender
notifications are not legal and not in accordance with law
pending. That, at a prima facie stage, the learned Single Judge
has rightly declined to grant any interim order or otherwise
the service being rendered by the respondents No.1 and 2
being essential service (supply of electricity) would have been
jeopardized, if any interim order had been granted in the writ
petitions. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals.
8. By way of reply learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners drew our attention to the impugned
order and specifically to the observations made by the learned
Single Judge to the following effect:
"That the Courts cannot regulate the business plans of
State owned enterprises". They contended that the said
observations would inevitably imply that the learned Single
Judge would not ultimately interfere in the matters and
therefore, the said observations may not come in the way of
considering the case of the petitioners/appellants on merits in
these appeals.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants made this
submission on the premise that in case, this Court is not
interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, atleast aforesaid observations may be deleted or
modified.
10. Leaned AGA submitted that these appeals assail the
interim order passed by the learned Single and the writ
petitions are yet to be argued and therefore, at this stage
impugned orders may not be interfered with.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, at the first instance, we observed that subsequent to
the order of the learned Single Judge, respondents No.1 and
have entered into contracts with the successful bidders and as
and when the works are to be executed, specific work orders
would be issued to the successful bidders.
Secondly, the observations, which have been made by
the learned Single Judge have to be treated only for the
purpose of considering the prayer of the petitioners/appellants
for grant of interim orders.
12. We make it clear that the observation of the learned
Single Judge "Courts cannot regulate the business plans of
State owned enterprises" is not to be treated as a pre-
determination of the matter on merits in the instant case, as
the matter is still to be heard finally. In the circumstances, we
observe that the said observation is restricted and limited for
the reason for declining to grant interim order. It shall not be
construed as an observation to be made applicable when the
final hearing of the matter takes place and the writ petitions
are adjudicated on merits.
13. We further observed that the aforesaid observation
of the learned Single Judge is not one made on the merits of
the case, but only a prima facie opinion expressed while
considering the interim prayer of the petitioners/appellants
herein. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge would have to
hear the writ petitions on their own merits and decide the
same in accordance with law.
14. Since in the interregnum, respondents No.1 and 2
have already entered into contract with successful bidders, we
observe that the same shall be subject to the result of the writ
petitions.
15. Further, since this is a case pertaining to a challenge
to conditions of the tender notification issued by the
respondents and the manner in which tenders ought to be
awarded over a period of next two years, we deem it just and
proper to reserve liberty to the appellants herein to seek early
hearing of the writ petitions. If any such request is made by
the petitioners/appellants herein, learned Single Judge is
requested to hear and dispose of the writ petitions preferably
within three months.
It is needless to observe that the respondents No.1 and
2 shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the writ
petitions.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
In view of the disposal of the above appeals, I.A.No.4 of
2020 in W.A.No.561/2020 and W.A.No.562/2020 and
I.A.No.1/2020 in WA No.563/2020 stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
