Karnataka State Shift Duties And ... vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 6270 Kant

  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.