Kerala High Court
Muhammed Nizar K vs State Of Kerala on 13 July, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 3850/2021 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3850 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 MUHAMMED NIZAR K,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. HYDRU, KINANGATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVENGAPPURA POST,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679 304.
2 M.E. ANAS
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. MOHAMED EBRAHEM, T/C. 46.454, PALLISTREET, PONNTHURA,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 026, KERALA.
3 ABDUL GAFOOR K
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. HUSSAN, KANIYARATTIL HOUSE, PATTAMBI P.O,
PALAKKAD - 679 303.
BY ADV O.A.NURIYA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (SUPPLY CHAIN
MANAGEMENT) VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
3 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(SCM) IN CHARGE,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
BY ADVS.
R2 & R3 BY SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY
R1 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 3850/2021 :2:
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2021.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
The petitioners, who are claiming to be, active social workers
and working for the benefit of the public at large through their
respective field of work, have filed this Public Interest Litigation
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P2 tender notification
issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter called
'K.S.E.B Ltd.'), in so far as the technical specification required by the
KSEB for the manufacture and supply of electric poles of 8 meter
having a working load of only 140 kgs., overlooking its decisions taken
in public interest to purchase 8m poles with 200 Kgs. working load due
to safety reasons.
2. The 1st petitioner is a former journalist and presently
working as Project Coordinator, National Centre for Biological Science,
Bangalore. Petitioner No. 2 is the Vice President of Indian National
Congress in Ambalathara Mandalam and is an active social worker
working from the Puthenpalli ward, Trivandrum. The 3 rd petitioner is a
social activist mainly concentrating his social works in and around
Palakkad District.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have filed this writ petition with the objective of
safeguarding the lives of the people, as they had faced with dreadful
effects of natural calamities and had worked very hard for the people
of their respective localities and also in their neighboring districts when
State faced tough times during heavy rainfalls, heavy winds, the
unexpected floods and landslides .
4. The respondent K.S.E.B Ltd. has invited competitive bids
from suppliers for the manufacture and supply of 8m and 9m PSC
Poles for various electrical circles under the Southern, Central,
Northern and North Malabar Regions for a period of 2 years. As per
the tender document, technical particulars required for an 8m Electric
Pole is provided as 140 kgs. working load; whereas the working load
prescribed for a 9 metre pole is 200 kgs. It is submitted that the
specification as provided under Ext P2 tender notification is against the
particulars provided by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. as well
as the orders passed by the KSEB Ltd. to have 8m PSC poles with 200
kgs working load, which is the prime contention advanced in the writ
petition.
5. Total contract is for an amount of around Rs. 254 crores. It is
submitted that the present tender notification jeopardizes the safety
of lives of people of Kerala, because as per the report of the Chief
Safety Commissioner of KSEB, accidents due to the breakage of poles
is increasing at an alarming rate in the State. There were reports from
the field officers that due to heavy wind and rain and falling of trees, a
huge number of poles were broken. It is further submitted that the
matter requires immediate and urgent attention of the Court, since if
the works are awarded to the contractors at the lower specification of
8m-140 kgs, it will be highly detrimental to the public interest
considering the fact of unprecedented floods and unexpected
landslides accompanied by heavy rainfall and heavy winds which has
been recurring in the State for past two years, and that the
representations and requests submitted in that regard have fallen on
deaf ears. In the above factual background, the petitioners have filed
this writ petition raising the following points:
1. Ext P3 Rural Electrification Corporation of India Ltd. has
provided that for an overall length of electric pole of 8 m, a
working load of 200 kgs. specification is required.
2. As per the report of the Chief Safety Commissioner of KSEB,
accidents due to the breakage of poles is increasing at an
alarming rate in the State.
3. All the other States in India, except the State of Kerala, are
following revised specifications while installing the 8m pole. In
Kerala, KSEB is still following the 140 Kgs workload, which is
extremely dangerous to the lives of the People.
3. As per Ext. P4 KSEB order, the Directors resolved to invite next
tender for the supply of 8 m PSC Poles with a working load of
200 kgs. as per REC Specified 15/1979. This order of KSEB to
invite future tenders with this Higher specification came in the
year 2019.
4. By Ext P5 order, the KSEB decided to manufacture revised
designs of electric poles of 8m and 9m with 200kgs. moulds to
overcome the monopoly of existing suppliers.
5. The higher standard specification is to protect the lives of people
from electrical accidents occurring due to breakage of poles.
6. Present notification is with political interests and to allow the
existing suppliers to continue their monopoly.
7. Newspaper Reports about the brittle posts which cannot survive
the winds and rainfalls and the arbitrary action of KSEB.
6. A counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the 2 nd
respondent stating that the petitioners themselves have stated in
Para 5 of the writ petition that all other States in India, except State of
Kerala and State of Madhya Pradesh, are using 8 meter Poles with 140
Kgs. working load, which according to them, is extremely dangerous.
A perusal of Exhibit-P3 would show that 8 meter/200 Kgs. PSC poles
should have a particular specification. There is nothing to show that
REC has mandated that only 8 meter/200 Kgs. PSC poles can be used
for supporting distribution lines. In this context, it may be noted that
REC had issued specifications in regard to PSC poles of 8
meter/140Kgs. also.
7. It is further submitted that Ext.R2(a) REC specification
15/1979 covers specification for 7.5M, 8.0 M and 9.0 M pre-stressed
cement concrete poles with 140 Kgs. and 200 Kgs. working load and
the Construction Standard B-11 published by the REC provides the
details of maximum permissible spans for three phase 4 wire LT lines
on 7.5M and 8M PSC poles for various types of conductors under
different wind pressure conditions. Ext. R2(a) is the REC standard
15/1979 and Ext.R2(b) is the REC Construction Standard B-11. In
Exhibits R2(a) and R2(b), the REC has given standards for 140 kgs. as
well as 200 kgs. PSC poles. It is the prerogative of the distribution
licencee to select any of these poles depending upon the site condition.
The standard specification only means that for an 8 meter/200 Kgs.
pole, it should satisfy the specified specifications and for 8 meter/140
Kgs. poles, the same should follow the specification prescribed in that
regard. REC is not a statutory authority dealing with safety aspects.
8. According to the 2nd respondent, it is only a nodal agency of
the Central Government to promote electricity generation and
incidentally it has ventured to issue specifications for manufacturing
PSC Poles, transformers, etc. and therefore, the contention of the
petitioners relying on Exhibit-P3 specification is without any legal
foundation. Presently, the KSEB is using ACSR Rabbit conductor. As per
Exhibit R2(b), maximum span for LT lines with ACSR Rabbit conductor
(7/3.35 mm) having 50 kg/m2 wind pressure can be 93 meter and
having 75 kg/m2 wind pressure is 57.5 meters. In Kerala, the wind
pressure, except during cyclones, will not go beyond 75 kg/m2.
9. The contention in paragraph 6 on the basis of Ext.P4 was also
denied by the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P4, the Chief Safety
Commissioner as per note dated 20.03.2019 reported that while
analyzing the cause of Electrical accidents during the last 2 years, it
was noted that accidents due to breakage of poles is increasingly
alarming and recommended certain measures to reduce the recurrence
of such accidents. In regard to PSC Poles, he recommended to revise
the specification of PSC Poles by including Compounded GI Wire as
earthing wire and to use Lattice Type A Poles, Rail Poles or Tubular
Steel Poles at cut points, Angle Points and as End Poles in HT & LT
electric line and also to entrust officials of civil wing under every
Electrical Circle to ensure the quality PSC Poles during every stage of
its manufacturing.
10. The Director (Distribution of IT) had prepared another note
on the basis of the Distribution Core Committee meeting held on
09.04.2019. In the said note, there was a recommendation to revise
the design for 8 Meter PSC Poles. The note also stated that as per
report from Field Officers, due to heavy wind, rain and falling of trees,
a huge number of poles were broken, mainly LT PSC Poles. The Chief
Engineer (SCM) also proposed to adopt the suggestion put forward by
the Director (Distribution & IT) and Safety Commissioner. The
suggestions were considered by the Full Time Directors and as per
Exhibit-P4 order dated 23.09.2019, the Full Time Directors resolved to
accord sanction to invite the next tender of 8 m PSC Poles with a
working load of 200 kgs. as per REC specification 15/1979 and also to
re-introduce departmental supervision by Assistant Engineer
(Civil)/Sub Engineer (Civil) for ensuring the quality of PSC Poles and to
include the same in the tender condition.
11. It is stated that yet another decision taken in the meeting
was in regard to safety wire, cross arms, etc. Based on the above
decision, proposal to invite next tender was placed before the Board of
Directors in its meeting held on 07.11.2019 (vide Agenda 33-11/2019)
for according sanction to invite fresh tenders for the manufacture and
supply of 8 meter and 9 meter PSC Poles with a minimum requirement
of 5,89,800 numbers of 8 meter and 2,83,050 numbers of 9 meter
PSC Poles for the next two years and for according administrative
sanction for an amount of Rs.325.20 Crores; however, the decision in
the matter was deferred.
12. Thereafter, the Director (Distribution, IT & HRM) sought a
report from the Chief Engineer (Distribution Central) as per letter
dated 16.12.2019 in regard to 8 m length LT, HT and HT/LT lines. In
response to the same, as per Ext. R2(c) letter dated 17.12.2019, the
Chief Engineer (Distribution Central) reported that presently most of
the lines are being constructed through the roads and average span
length of the lines LT, HT & HT/LT depends on the orientation and
alignment of the road and that Cross-country lines are very less in
quantity and therefore, the span length depends upon the route (along
the road) conditions. He, therefore, reported that the maximum
common span of LT & HT lines are about 35 meters and the average
can be taken as 30 meters. HT/LT lines on A Poles have a maximum
of 40 to 45 meters and 9 meter poles have an average span of 30
meters. He further informed that after the introduction of Aerial
Bunched Cables (ABC) for both HT & LT, the span length is limited to
25 meters for the drawal of ABC. In conclusion, he stated that the
average span for PSC Poles can be taken as less than 30 meters.
13. As per Ext.R2(d) letter dated 30.12.2019, the Chief
Engineer (Distribution South) replied to the Director (Distribution & IT)
that the present average span length of LT, HT & HT/LT lines is 25 to
30 meters as per the prevailing field conditions. As per Ext.R2(e)
letter dated 30.12.2019, the Chief Engineer (Distribution) North
Malabar, Kannur replied to the Director (Distribution IT) that the
average span length of LT, HT & HT/LT lines related to his region is 30
meters. Thereafter, the Director (Distribution IT & HRM), as per letter
dated 31.12.2019, sought a report from the Chief Engineer (Civil
Construction South) in regard to design of 8 meter PSC Poles having
strength of 140 Kg. and the safe span length and accordingly, he
submitted Ext.R2(f) note dated 04.02.2020. The Chief Engineer (Civil
Construction South) pointed out to the Director (Distribution IT &
HRM) that the maximum span length permissible for 8 meter PSC
poles with 5 numbers of rabbit conductor and two cables is 15.1 meter
as per IS:875 and with 3 numbers of Rabbit Conductor with 2 numbers
cables is 21 meters. However, he had reported that considering the
recent test results of 8 meter PSC poles, the above spans can be
increased by 100%. Thus, according to him, the maximum
permissible span of 8 meter PSC poles having 140 Kgs. strength can
be 30 meters and 40 meters respectively.
14. On 05.02.2020, the Director (Distribution IT & HRM)
forwarded a note to the Director (Generation, Electrical & SCM), in
which reference was made to the proposal of Chief Engineer (SCM)
regarding introduction of 8 meter PSC Poles designed for a working
load of 200 kgs. instead of the present design of a working load of 140
kgs. It is mentioned in the note that the 14 th Distribution Core
Committee meeting discussed the proposal in detail and recommended
finalization of the design based on actual field conditions and that
subsequently reports were called for from the Chief Engineer of
Distribution regarding the prevailing average span length of low
tension lines and as per the said report, the span length of LT lines is
30 meters. It is further stated that as per the report from the Chief
Engineer (Civil, Construction South), the maximum permissible span
for low tension 5 wire line using rabbit conductors and two cables is 40
meters. It is further stated that 17th Distribution Core Committee
meeting held on 05.02.2020 discussed those reports and assessed the
prevailing field condition in detail and the Core committee was of the
opinion that lines along/across street where the statutory clearance
required is the maximum lines are drawn mostly in HT/LT configuration
using 9 meter PSC Poles or A type poles and LT lines using 8 meter
PSC Poles, and where the number of conductors or the number of
cables are higher than the common configuration mentioned above are
mostly in urban areas where the prevailing span is much lower than
the average span due to high service connection density. The Director
(Distribution IT & HRM), therefore, opined that the prevailing design
with a working load of 140 kgs. is sufficient for 8 meter Pole for
common low tension line configuration. Ext.R2(g) is the note
forwarded to the Director (Generation, Electrical & SCM) by the
Director (Distribution IT & HRM) dated 05.02.2020.
15. Thereafter, the matter again came up before the Full Time
Directors, in its meeting held on 13.02.2020, in which Exhibits R2 (b)
to R2 (f) and other relevant aspects were considered and the Full Time
Directors resolved to keep in abeyance Ext.P4 order dated 23.09.2019
and decided to place the matters regarding invitation of tenders and
also the administrative sanction for the required amount before the
Full Time Board of the KSEB Ltd. The decision in this regard was issued
on 18.02.2020, as is evident from Ext. R2(h). Pursuant to the same,
the matter was placed before the Board, in its meeting held on
04.03.2020, and the Board resolved to accord administrative sanction
for an amount of Rs.275 crores for purchase of 5,91700 numbers 8
meter and 2,79600 of 9-meter PSC poles in all electrical circles and
also resolved to accord sanction to invite tenders for the manufacture
and supply 8 meter and 9-meter PSC Poles for the next two years.
Thereafter, proceedings dated 4.3.2020 were issued vide Ext.R2(i)
Board order dated 18.03.2020. Thus, according to the 2nd
respondent, the decision to deviate from Exhibit-P4 decision of the Full
Time Directors is a conscious decision taken by the Board after
considering the relevant aspects and without any way compromising
safety requirements.
16. It is further stated that there is no rigid specification for the
design of load of PSC Poles as it is dependent on endemic conditions
and loading requirements. Ext.R2(a) REC specification 15/1979
covers the standards for 7.5M, 8M and 9M PSC poles and Ext. R2(b)
REC construction standard for LT lines B-11 provide maximum span
length for 8 meter PSC Poles having design loads of 200 kgs. as well
as 140 kgs. at different wind pressures. According to the second
respondent, the contention of the petitioners that all PSC poles shall
invariably have a design load of 200 kgs. is not from a proper
understanding of the factual and legal situation and even the
petitioners have admitted that in other States, 8 m PSC Poles
presently installed through the length and breadth of the State have a
design load of 140 kgs. According to the second respondent, there is
no permeating danger owing to the design working load of these poles
and it is not the cause of any identifiable safety concern and the
averments to the contrary in the petition are deliberate concoctions for
achieving a selfish end.
17. It is further stated that the main cause of breakage of PSC
Poles is due to improprieties in design. Wind load of the pole is not a
commonly seen cause of breakage. It comes into play only when the
pole is subjected to impacts like vehicle accidents. In such situations,
changing wind load from 140 kgs. to 200 kgs. does not make any
perceptible difference in the anticipated result. The primary cause of
breakage of poles during the last two years is found to be due to
insufficient curing and insufficient tensioning duration, which was
caused partly due to the force upon the manufacturing system on
account of extraordinary demand for poles during the period of power
supply restoration works owing to unprecedented natural calamities
and the same is clear from the data pertaining to pole breakage for the
last three years, it is contended. Ext.R2(j) is the chart showing the
quantity of PSC poles purchased from March 2018 upto December
2020 and Ext.R2(k) is the details of pole damage during the above
said period. As can be seen from Exhibits R2(i) and R2 (j), a total of
7,51,225 numbers of 8 m- 140 kgs. poles were purchased during the
above period, out of which the number of damaged poles was only
216. Therefore, it was submitted that the said data would clearly
show that using 140 kgs. design is not a cause for any safety alarm.
18. It is also stated that lines along/across streets where the
statutory clearance requirement is the maximum, are drawn mostly in
the high tension/low tension configuration using 9-meter PSC poles or
'A' type Iron poles. Where the number of conductors or the number of
cables are higher than the common configurations mentioned above
(mostly in urban areas), the prevailing span is much lower than the
average span due to high service connection density. Due to the high
spatial density of houses and other establishments in urban areas, the
span of lines, i.e., distance between two adjacent poles would be much
lower than the average, as poles would have to be installed in short
spans to provide individual electricity connections. In rural areas, the
2nd line configuration i.e. low tension three wire line using ACSR rabbit
conductor, which accommodates a span of 40 is more common.
Considering these aspects, the prevailing design with a working load of
140 kg. was found sufficient for 8-meter PSC poles for common low
tension line configurations. Further, the KSEBL has advanced very well
with the conversion of LT overhead lines with a completely insulated
system of Aerial Bunched Cables (ABC) in urban as well as rural areas
in order to improve safety and for which the maximum distance
between the poles is 25 meters. As such, the decision to continue with
the procurement of 8 meter PSC Poles with a design wind load of 140
kgs. was taken.
19. It is further stated that Exhibit P5 order issued by the Full
Time Directors is in a different context. It is self-explanatory. There is
no proposal to do away with 8m/140 PSC poles. Moreover, it is
submitted that the Full Time Directors cannot override a decision of
the Full Board.
20. The present suppliers of poles are Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises (MSME) in Kerala. Most of them do not presently have
moulds for 8 m PSC Poles with design load of 200 kg. Installation of
suitable infrastructure is a capital investment Project to which many of
these units may not be capable of. From Ext.P6, it is clear that in
spite of the fact that the tender invitation was an open tender, out of
the 16 persons who responded, only 4 persons were from outside the
State, which shows lack of interest for manufacturers from outside
Kerala. Moreover, it would be a difficult task for the Electricity Board
to supervise the manufacturing process when the poles are
manufactured outside Kerala. The Electricity Board cannot wait for the
manufacturers to enhance the size of their moulds, because the
requirement of PSC Poles is huge and the shortage of such poles will
affect the distribution system very badly.
21. It was further submitted that the KSEBL has floated the tender
for the purchase of PSC poles for its system developments and the
requirement of poles for restoration of poles which are likely to
become damaged during the forthcoming summer rains, and the
succeeding monsoon. Scarcity of poles will cause extreme difficulty in
maintaining electric supply during damages, is the final submission.
22. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners refuting the
contentions in the counter, and reiterating the stand adopted in the
writ petition, and along with the same some additional documents are
also produced
23. We have heard Smt. Nuriya O.A for the petitioners and
Senior Advocate Sri. Raju Joseph for the KSEB Limited assisted by Adv.
Joseph Antony, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
24. The basic contention advanced by the petitioners is that as
per the tender document, technical specification required for 8 M
electrical pole is 140 Kgs. working load. According to the petitioners,
the specification provided under Ext. P2 tender notification is against
the requirements provided by the Rural Electrification Corporation
Limited (RCL) as well as Ext. P4 orders passed by the KSEB Limited. To
substantiate the same, the petitioners have brought to our notice the
relevant portion of Ext. P2 pre-qualification bid dated 22.10.2020,
which reads thus:
"Technical particulars of 8m and 9m poles to be manufactured as follows:
Category Working Cross Section No. of Steel wires
load
Bottom Top Tensioned Un-
4 mm dia tensioned 4
mm dia
8m 140 Kgs 275mm x 105 mm x 8 2 (4.72 m
90 mm 90 mm long)
9m 200 Kgs. 315 mm x 115 mm x 12 2 (4.47 m
105 mm 105 mm long)
It is clear from the said technical specification that the working load of
the 8m electric pole is fixed at 140 kgs., whereas that of the 9m is 200
kgs.
25. The predominant contention advanced by the petitioners is
that as per Ext. P4 order dated 23.09.2019 issued by the KSEB
Limited, it is clear that the Chief Safety Commissioner of KSEB has
reported that the accidents due to the breakage of poles are increasing
at an alarming rate in the State and the Chief Safety Commissioner
has recommended the following measures to reduce the recurrence of
such accidents:
"The Chief Safety Commissioner, as per note read as 1 st paper above,
has reported that while analysing the causes of electrical accidents,
during the last two years, it was noted that accidents due to breakage of
poles is increasing alarmingly and has recommended the following
measures to reduce the recurrence of such accidents.
1. To revise the specification of PSC poles by incurring embedded GI wire
as earthing wire.
2. To use lattice type A poles, rail poles or tubular steel poles at cut points,
angle points and as end poles in HT and LT electric lines.
3. To entrust the officials of civil wing under every electrical circle to
ensure the quality of PSC poles during every stage of its manufacturing."
26. That apart, in Ext. P5 order dated 05.11.2020 issued by the
KSEB Limited, it is clearly specified that in order to fill up the gap of
production capacity, suggestion was made to set up more yards in the
land owned by the KSEB Limited and in private land, wherever the
land of KSEB Limited is not available. It was also specified thereunder
that total requirement of KSEB Limited cannot be met by the PSC pole
suppliers as per the change in design specifications suggested by the
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (ie., 8m-200 Kgs.). In this context,
it is profitable and relevant to extract the said order of the KSEB
Limited, which reads thus:
"ORDER
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited is now facing acute shortage of
PSC Poles for meeting emergency requirements. At present the total
requirement of PSC Poles has been arranged through tenders and have 9 Nos..
Of MSME firms within Kerala and 3 Nos. outside Kerala suppliers. The
manufacturing capacity of the MSME firms within the state is less than 50% of
KSEBL's requirement. Also at present Kerala State Electricity Board Limited
has two pole casting units already given to MSME on lease basis for the
manufacture and supply of PSC poles at Mangattuparamba and Mananthavady
and same arranged through open tenders.
In order to fill the gap of the production capacity, it is suggested to set up
more yards in land owned by Kerala State Electricity Board Limited and in
private land wherever Kerala Electricity Board Limited's land is not available.
Further it is to be noted that the total requirement of Kerala State Electricity
Board Limited cannot be met by the PSC Poles suppliers in Kerala and the
suppliers are reluctant for the supply of PSC Poles, as per the change in design
specifications suggested by Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (i.e., 8m-
200 Kg)
In order to overcome the monopoly exercised by PSC Poles suppliers in
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, proposal for setting up of new PSC
Pole Casting Units (with moulds to suit the changed design of PSC Pole -- 8m
200 Kg and with existing design of 9m PSC Poles- 200 Kg) in the districts in
which private pole casting yards are not existing /yard capacity of existing
private pole casting yards are not sufficient are to be established by Kerala
State Electricity Board Limited. If new pole casting yards are set up by Kerala
State Electricity Board Limited, it will increase more competition among PSC
Pole suppliers and hence reduced rates of PSC Poles can be expected in the
subsequent tenders and benefited by Kerala State Electricity Board Limited in
future.
As such new pole casting yards are proposed in the following districts in
which land owned by Kerala State Electricity Board Limited are available for
setting up of PSC Poles Casting Yards.
1. Thiruvananthapuram District at Pothencode.
2. Kollam District at Kundara.
3. Idukki District at Sengulam
4. Thrissur District --By renovation at the existing Choolissery Departmental
Yard.
5. In Alappuzha Circle, land suitable for pole casting yard is not available with
Kerala State Board Limited.
Yard capacity of the proposed yards may be considered approximately
for 8m-1000 to 1500 per month and 9m-500 to 750 per month. For the setting
up of a Pole Casting Yard with yard capacity of 8m-1500 Nos. per month (8m-
200 kg) and 9 m-750 Nos. per month (9m-200 kg.) financial commitment to
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited would be approximately Rs.4 Crore
(Rupees Four Crore only). For the maintenance of the Choolissery yard,
including the dismantling of existing 8m moulds to suit the changed design of
8m-200Kg. Approximate Rs.1 Crore is required.
Also maintenance of moulds are to be carried out in the existing
Mangattuparamba yard, as the moulds are in deteriorated condition and hence
casting of poles now exercising difficulty. Thus, the existing deteriorated 8 m
moulds in Mangattuparamba yard are to be replaced with changed design
moulds of 8m-200kg and maintenance of 9m moulds are to be carried out.
Approximate financial commitment would be Rs.50 Lakh. Thus the total
Financial commitment for the setting up of 3 new pole casting yards at
Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and ldukki District for renovation of the
Choolassery yard and Mangatuparamba yard would be approximately Rs.13.50
Crores (Rupees Thirteen Crore and Fifty Lakh only).
Administrative sanction for the amount of Rs.13.50 Crore (Rupees
Thirteen Crore and fifty Lakh only) is required for the setting up of the 3
departmental yards and for the maintenance of two departmental yards at
Choolissery and Mangattuparamba.
The matter was placed before Full Time Directors as per note read as 1st
above. In the Note the Chairman & Managing Director sought clarification on
the Wind load of the poles.
Accordingly the Director (GE&SCM) has proposed that the new pole
casting yards shall setup with a wind load of 200 Kg and in the case of
MSME's either the existing MSME's shall take necessary arrangements to
convert to 200 kg wind-load within a specified time limit (i.e. within one year)
or when ever the existing moulds gets damaged within one year, new moulds
should be made in 200 kg wind load. Thus all the MSME's should be converted
to 200 kg wind load in a phased manner. The Chairman & Managing Director
has fully concurred with the revised proposal from the Director (GE&SCM)
regarding the weight of 8m & 9m PSC Poles which is in tune with REC norms
and sought remarks of the Distribution Core Committee from the Director
(D,IT&HRM).
Accordingly the matter was taken up with the Director (D,IT&HRM)
vide read as 2 above for obtaining the remarks. The Director (D,IT&HRM) has
remarked that the Distribution Core Committee had already considered the
matter of revising the design of PSC Poles. As such, the design for PSC Poles
with 200 Kg is acceptable. Advance information regarding the change of design
shall be intimated to all manufacturers. The change of design shall be
implemented from future tenders.
Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Time Directors as per
note read as 5 above. Having considered the matter in detail, the Full Time
Directors in the meeting held on 04.11.2020 resolved to accord sanction for the
following:
1. To accord Administrative Sanction for an amount of Rs.13.50 Crores
(Rupees Thirteen Core and Fifty Lakh only) for the setting up of three
Departmental PSC Pole Casting Yards at land owned by KSEBL in
Thiruvananthapuram (Pothencode), Kollam (Kundara) Idukki at
Sengulam, Thrissur District and in Alappuzha District.
2. To set up the new Departmental Pole Casting Yards for the
manufacturing of 8m and 9 m PSC Poles with a wind load of 200 Kg.
3. To entrust the work of design & construction of the three new
Departmental Pole Casting Yards and maintenance of two
Departmental yards is to be entrusted with the Chief Engineer (Civil
Construction South).
Orders are issued accordingly.
By order of the Full Time Directors,
sd/-
Lekha G.
Company Secretary in Charge."
27. The tender proceedings pertaining to Exts. P1 and P2 were
proceeded and ultimately the Pre-Qualification Committee pre-qualified
11 suppliers and discarded 4 suppliers, evident from Ext. P6 Agenda
item No. 12/2020-21. The petitioners have relied on certain paper
publications also as an attempt to establish that though KSEBL has
decided to change the design specifications of 8 M pole to 200 Kgs.,
and that the present notification inviting tenders as regards 8m poles
is absolutely a waste of public money, especially due to the fact that
the amount involved in Exts. P1 and P2 tender proceedings are above
Rs.246 Crores and a substantial amount has to be spent towards 8m
poles. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the said action of the
KSEB Limited, a State Government undertaking, by overlooking its
own orders taking into account the safety features, is nothing but an
arbitrary and illegal exercise of power conferred on the Board by virtue
of the statutes constituted for the purpose. It is also pointed out that
there are no reasons assigned anywhere in the orders of the Board
produced along with the counter affidavit for change of design of 8 m
poles with 200 kgs. working load, which was finalised basically taking
into account safety features.
28. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the Board submitted that the Board has decided as per Ext.R2(i) order
dated 18.03.2020 to invite tenders with the specification as contained
in the tender notification and merely because some opinions were
expressed by the Full Time members of the Board or the Electrical
Corporation Limited, and merely because some safety features were
suggested, that cannot be termed as an order issued by the Board to
change its design specifications. That apart, it was contended that the
Electrical Corporation Limited has never insisted that the KSEB should
change the specification of its 8 m poles to 200 Kgs. Apart from the
same, the contentions of the Board extracted above are also pressed
into service to establish that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the
tender invited by the Board and therefore, the petitioners have not
made out any case for interference of this Court exercising the power
of judicial discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
29. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board had
also submitted that the KSEB Limited is put to various difficulties due
to shortage consequent to the interim order granted by this Court. It
was also pointed out that the contention advanced by the petitioners in
the reply affidavit with regard to the contracts secured by M/s. Gautam
Cement Works, Chennai, which establishment was qualified in the pre
qualification bid in the instant tender also happened to be the lowest
bid in many tenders invited by the KSEB Limited and no manner of
illegality or mala fides can be attributed against the KSEB Limited on
account of the tenders secured by M/s Gautam Cement Works,
Chennai.
30. It was also submitted that nowhere in the inspection report
of the Chief Safety Commissioner, it is mentioned that the poles
supplied by M/s. Gautam Cements were broken and caused accidents.
Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that various accidents took place due
the breakage of poles and it was accordingly, that the Chief Safety
Commissioner submitted the report before the Board, and the Full
Time Directors of the Board, as per Exts P4 and. P5, has decided to
change the design of 8m poles to 200 Kgs.
31. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the
Bar. The prime aspect emerging for consideration is whether Exts. P4
and P5 orders passed by the KSEB Limited dated 23.09.2019 and
05.11.2020 are absolute decisions taken by the Board so as to treat
the tender notification in question as arbitrary and illegal liable to be
interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the intrinsic question that is formulated by the petitioners
for consideration is whether in the light of Exts. P4 and P5 decisions of
the KSEB Limited for procuring 8m poles with 200 kgs working load,
was the KSEB Ltd right in inviting tenders for manufacture and supply
of 8m poles with 140 Kgs. working load.
32. In Ext. P4 order of the Full Time Directors of the Board, it is
clearly stated that the Chief Safety Commissioner, as per a note dated
20.03.2018, has reported that while analysing the case of electrical
accidents during the last two years, it was noted that, the accidents
due to breakage of poles is increasing alarmingly and therefore,
recommended 3 measures to reduce the recurrence of such accidents
i.e. (i) to revise the specification of PSC poles by including embedded
GI wire as earthing wire; (ii) to use lattice type A poles, rail poles or
tubular steel poles at cut points, angle points and as end poles in HT
and Lt electric lines; and (iii) to entrust the officials of civil wing under
every Electrical circle, to ensure the quality of PSC Poles during every
stage of its manufacturing. Whereas the Full Time Directors of the
Board, in its meeting held on 03.09.2019, resolved to accord sanction
for the following, deviating from the suggestions made by the Chief
Safety Commissioner for strengthening the poles as above:
1. To invite next tender for supply of 8m PSC poles with working load of
200 Kgs asper REC specifications 15/1979 and as per drawing attached
as Annexure, and
2. To adopt the proposals forwarded by the Director (Distribution & IT) in
future tenders i.e., (i)use of 7/3.15 mm Stay Wire for both 11 KV Lines
and LT lines, (ii) usage of 2 line and 4 line channel cross arms instead
of angle cross arms and (iii) reintroduction of earthing wire in 9 meter
PSC Poles.
Further instructions were also issued thereunder.
33. Anyhow as per Ext. P5, it was found that the Board is facing
acute shortage of PSC poles for meeting emergent requirements and
the total requirement of PSC poles has been furnished for purchase by
open tenders since only 9 numbers of MSME firms are within the State
of Kerala and 3 numbers outside Kerala as suppliers. Accordingly,
certain decisions were taken in order to fill the gap of production
capacity and suggested setting up more yards in the land owned by
the KSEB Ltd. and in private land wherever the land of KSEB Limited is
not available. Further, it was noted thereunder that the total
requirement of KSEB Limited cannot be met by the PSC poles suppliers
in Kerala and the suppliers are reluctant for the supply of PSC poles as
per the change in design specifications suggested by the KSEB Limited
i.e., 8m-200 Kgs. Other decisions were taken including the decision to
replace the changed design moulds of 8m 200 Kgs. in the existing
Mangattuparamba yard and the maintenance of the 9 meter moulds
also to be carried out from the said yard. It is interesting to note that
even the approximate financial commitment was assessed, and the
total financial commitment for setting up of 3 new Pole Casting Yards
at Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Idukki District and for renovation
of the Choolissery and Mangattuparamba yards was fixed
approximately at Rs 13.50 crores. Therefore, it was decided to accord
administrative sanction for the said amount.
34. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Time
Directors as per the note dated 28.09.2020 referred to in Ext. P5
extracted above. The Director (GE &SCM) has proposed that the new
pole casting yards shall be set up with a wind load of 200 Kgs. and in
case of MSME, either the existing MSME shall take necessary
arrangements to convert to 200 Kgs. wind-load within a specified time
limit (i.e. within one year) or whenever the existing moulds get
damaged within one year, new moulds should be made in 200 kgs.
wind-load. Thus, it was recorded that all the MSMEs should be directed
to convert to 200 Kgs. wind-load in a phased manner. The Chairman
and the Managing Director of the KSEB Limited has fully concurred
with the revised proposal from the Director (GE & SCM) regarding the
weight of 8 m and 9 m PSC Poles which is in tune with the REC norms
and sought remarks of the Distribution Core Committee from the
Director (D, IT & HRM).
35. It is significant to note that the Director (D,IT & HRM) has
remarked that the Distribution Core Committee had already considered
the matter of revising the design of PSC poles and as such, the design
for PSC Poles with 200 Kgs. is acceptable, and consequently directed
to give advance information regarding the change of design to all
manufacturers. It was also decided that the change of design shall be
implemented from future tenders. With the above background facts,
the matter was placed before the Full Time Directors and as per the
note dated 04.11.2020 of the Director, the Board after having
considered the matter decided (i) to accord administrative sanction for
an amount of Rs.13.50 Crores for the setting up of 3 Departmental
PSC Pole Casting Yards at the land owned by the KSEB in various
districts; (ii) to set up the new Departmental Pole Casting Yards for the
manufacturing of 8m and 9 m PSC Poles with a wind load of 200 Kg;
and (iii) to entrust the work of design & construction of the three new
Departmental Pole Casting Yards and maintenance of two
Departmental yards with the Chief Engineer (Civil Construction South).
36. Therefore, it is clear from Ext. P5 order of the Board dated
05.11.2020 that the Board has taken certain definite decisions with
respect to the specification of 8 m poles with a wind-load of 200 kg
and further that the change of design shall be implemented from the
future tenders. It is important to note that the tender invitation is
dated 22.10.2020 and Ext. P4 order of the KSEB Limited is dated
23.09.2019 in which a decision was clearly taken to invite next tender
for the supply of 8 m PSC Poles with a working load of 200 kgs. as per
REC specifications 15/1979 and as per the drawings attached as
annexure. There is no doubt that even though there is no reference
made to Ext. P4 order of the Board dated 23.09.2019, Ext. P5 order of
the Board extracted above is a consequential order made to the order
dated 23.09.2019. Therefore, it is clear from Exts.P4 and P5 Board
orders that the future tenders shall be invited with the specifications of
200 Kgs. wind-load for 8m PSC Poles. However, the contention
advanced by the Board is that the Chief Safety Commissioner has only
recommended incorporation of certain measures to reduce the
recurrence of such accidents and has not recommended the 8m PSC
Poles with 200 Kgs. working load.
37. But, in our considered opinion, taking into account the
recommendation of the Chief Safety Commissioner, the Full Time
Directors of the Board have arrived at certain specific norms or an
authoritative standard in the matter of 8m PSC poles to have 200 Kgs.
wind-load/working load. Therefore, what is binding on the Board is
not the recommendation of the Chief Safety Commissioner, but the
decision taken by the Board itself to replace 8 m PSC poles having a
wind-load of 140 Kgs. with 8 m PSC poles having 200 Kgs. wind load.
Even though it is strenuously contended that the Director (Distribution,
IT & HRM) opined that the working load of 140 Kgs. is sufficient for 8
m poles for common low tension line configuration relying upon
Ext.R2(g) dated 05.02.2020, the Board itself has taken a decision
earlier as per Ext.P4 and later by Ext P5 to change the specification,
which are deliberated above. The Board cannot resile from its decision
taken on the basis of safety reasons based on public interest, by
assigning flimsy reasons and contending that the Director has only
recommended for continuance of 8m PSC poles with a working load of
140 Kgs.
38. Anyhow, it is seen from Ext.R2(h) that pursuant to Ext.P4
order dated 23.09.2019, the matter was placed before the Full Time
Directors of the Board and Ext.R2(h) decision was taken on
18.02.2020. Nowhere it is stated in the said board order how the
Board has overcome the issue of breakage of poles and safety aspects,
which persuaded the Board to change the specifications of 8m poles,
and why it was taking an abrupt decision to deviate from the decision
taken in Ext.P4 order dated 23.09.2019. However, pursuant to
Ext.R2(h), it has taken a further decision on 04.03.2020 and Ext.R2(i)
proceedings were issued on 18.03.2020 according administrative
sanction for an amount of Rs.275 Crores for the purchase of 5,91700
numbers of 8 m PSC poles with a wind load of 140 Kgs and 2,79600
numbers of 9 m PSC poles with wind load of 200 Kgs in all electrical
circles, and also resolved to accord sanction to invite tenders for the
manufacture and supply of 8 m and 9 m PSC poles for the next two
years.
39. It is interesting to note that the Board has not taken any
decision in the immediate aforesaid orders, with respect to the reason
for change in configuration of the 8 m PSC poles with a working load of
200 Kgs. arrived at as per Ext.P4 order and the decision to invite
tenders accordingly. However, it was stated that considering the
reports of the Chief Engineer of Distribution Wing and the Chief
Engineer (Civil Construction South) as well as the discussions in the
Distribution Core Committee meeting held on 05.02.2020, the Director
(Distribution, IT & HRM), as per note dated 05.02.2020, suggested
that the prevailing design with the working load of 140 Kgs. would be
sufficient for 8 m PSC poles for common low tension line configuration.
40. It is significant to note that Ext.P4 order was passed by the
Board taking into account the safety features of the 8 m poles and in
public interest a decision was taken to replace 8 m poles having a
working load of 140 Kgs. with 8 m PSC poles having a working load of
200 Kgs. Neither in Ext. R2(g) nor in Ext.R2(h), the Board has stated
any reasons as to how and why it is diluting the safety features arrived
at due to breakage of poles and has decided to purchase 8 m PSC
poles with 140 Kgs. working load.
41. It is equally significant to note that it is after Exts.R2(g)
and R2(i) that Ext.P5 decision was taken by the Board dated
05.11.2020 to set up a new Departmental Pole Casting Yards for the
manufacture of 8 m and 9 m PSC poles with a wind load of 200 Kgs.,
taking into account the larger public interest and safety features and
inviting future tenders accordingly. Therefore, it can be seen that the
Board has deviated from its decision taken in Ext. P4 in order to invite
tenders with change in specifications pertaining to Exts.P1 and P2
notification and the consequential proceedings for the reasons best
known to the Board. This we highlight because, if the board wanted to
deviate from the order taking into account the safety features, it ought
to have assigned sufficient and adequate reasons. The said attitude of
the Board can only be viewed as unjustifiable for the reasons assigned
elaborately above, especially due to the fact that later as per Ext.P5,
the Board has retracted from its orders referred to in the counter and
discussed above, and decided to go ahead with the change in
specification as regards 8 m PSC poles having a working load of 200
Kgs.
42. Taking into account the above aspects, we are of the view
that the Board has deviated from Ext.P4 and had taken Exts.R2(g),
R2(h) and R2(i) decisions without any bona fides, added to the fact
that no reasons are assigned for its sudden deviation for a short while
after Ext P4 decision taken on 23.09.2019 and returning to the said
decision within a very short span as per Ext. P5 order dated 5-11-
2020. This is more so due to the fact that a large number of 8m poles
were decided to be purchased with a specification of 140 Kgs. wind
load. Whereas, if the Board was of the opinion that in order to meet
up with any emergent requirements, it ought to have manufactured
the same in its premises or purchased 8 m PSC poles with 140 Kgs. to
tide over the emergent situations, instead of inviting tenders for lakhs
and lakhs of poles with the said specification.
43. We say so because, the Board at one point of time, was of
the clear opinion that the breakages are caused due to the flaw in
structural design of 8m poles and it was accordingly, decided to
change the specifications; but the Board has taken a sudden deviation
later as deliberated above, which is a suspicious stop gap arrangement
in between Ext. P4 and P5 board orders, and, which in our view, is
against public interest on account of safety and economic reasons. To
put it otherwise, public interest should be given utmost preference and
importance, and in fact the same was given by the Board, but later
ignored for a short span for the reasons best known to the Board,
which action would have to be viewed with greater suspicion taking
into consideration the larger public interest. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to hold that the decision of the Board to proceed with
Exts.P1 and P2 tenders so far as concerning 8m poles with a working
load of 140 Kgs. cannot be sustained under law.
44. Even though the learned senior Counsel for the Board has
submitted that since it is a policy decision of the Board, the writ court
may not interfere, we are of the firm opinion that if and when there
are clear arbitrariness or patent illegality or other substantial, solid
and stable legal infirmities, or outrageous action discernible from the
face of the record, this Court would be absolutely justified in exercising
the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, when the above discussed aspects are
considered on the touchstone of Article 14, change in policy made by
the Board for a short period overlooking public interest and public
safety is totally unreasonable. To justify and legitimize the said logic
arrived at by this Bench, it would be fruitful to note the elementary
principles that validate judicial interference in administrative actions as
enunciated by the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions
v. Minister for the Civil Service, [(1984) 3 All ER 935]; they are
"illegality", "irrationality" and " procedural impropriety".
45. In this context, we also propose to refer to a few relevant
judgments of the Apex Court:
In Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC
437, while considering the scope of interference in the grant of
permits under maritime laws for deep-sea fishing vessels, it was held
as follows:
"15. While the discretion to change the policy in
exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by
any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and
implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy
must be made fairly and should not give the impression
that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria.
The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every
State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone
irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an
accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is
fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in
essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play.
Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review
only to the extent that the State must act validly for a
discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior
purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of
arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely
defined. A question whether the impugned action is
arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts
and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious
test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any
discernible principle emerging from the impugned action
and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness."
46. In DDA v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee
of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672, the Hon'ble Apex Court,
in the matter of allocation of flats, considered the issue of
the realm of interference of constitutional courts in policy
matters and held thus:
"64. An executive order termed as a policy decision
is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas
the superior courts may not interfere with the nitty-
gritty of the policy, or substitute one by the other
but it will not be correct to contend that the court
shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised
that the impugned decision is a policy decision.
Interference therewith on the part of the superior
court would not be without jurisdiction as it is
subject to judicial review."
47. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of
India, (2016) 6 SCC 408, the Apex Court, while considering the
question of award of spectrum, had occasion to delve into the
principles of judicial scrutiny in policy decisions and held so:
"26. It cannot be doubted that the primary and central
purpose of judicial review of the administrative action is to
promote good administration. It is to ensure that
administrative bodies act efficiently and honestly to
promote the public good. They should operate in a fair,
transparent, and unbiased fashion, keeping in forefront the
public interest. To ensure that the aforesaid dominant
objectives are achieved, this Court has added new
dimension to the contours of judicial review and it has
undergone tremendous change in recent years. The scope of
judicial review has expanded radically and it now extends
well beyond the sphere of statutory powers to include
diverse forms of "public" power in response to the
changing architecture of the Government..."
48. Therefore, in our considered view, the action of the Board
requires interference and accordingly, we quash that portion of Exts.P1
and P2 tender documents concerning 8m PSC Poles with 140 Kgs
working load, however leave open the liberty of the Board to invite
tenders in accordance with the decision taken in regard to 8 m PSC
poles with 200 Kgs. working load in Ext.P4 and P5 orders of the Board
referred to above specifically.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3850/2021
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BID NO. SCM/KSEB/EP.46/2021-21
DATED 22.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF
ENGINEER(SCM) IN CHARGE OF KSEB LTD.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TENDER DOCUMENT BID NO
KSEB/SCM/EP.46/2020-21 DATED 22.10.2020 ISSUED BY
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (SCM) IN CHARGE OF
KSEB LTD.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TECHNICAL PARTICULARS REQUIRED BY
RURAL ELECTRICAL NOTIFICATION LIMITED AS PER REC
SPECIFICATION NO. 24/1983.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B.O (FTD) NO.710/2019
(PC/SCM/2019-20/PSC POLES - DESIGN//4014) DATED
23.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B.O(FTD) NO. 665/2020 D(G-
E & SCM)/G1/2020-21 DATED 05.11.2020 ISSUED BY
COMPANY SECRETARY IN CHARGE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF PRE QUALIFICATION
COMMITTED MEETING NO. 12/2020-21 DATED 4.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN
MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 03.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN
TIMES OF INDIA DAILY DATED 10.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P7(b) TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN
MATHRUBHOOMI ONLINE DATED 22.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT OF
VIGILANCE ENQUIRY NO.C.S.C/SAFETY-GENERAL/2019-
20/282 DATED 24.07.2019 WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P8(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY DEPUTY CHIEF
ENGINEER TO THE DIRECTOR (DISTRIBUTION CAPs &
IT) no. TS3/PMU/2018-2019 DATED 21.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTE TO CHIEF ENGINEER (SCM) BY
DISTRIBUTION & IT NO. D (D&IT)/D6-AE3/DCC-MoM
14/2019 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF PROPOSAL OF DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
TO HTE CHIEF ENGINEER NO.ECP/T1/GENERAL/2019-
20/1286 DATED 19.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF ACCIDENTS OCCURRED DUE TO
BREAKAGE OF PSC POLES DURING THE PERIOD FROM
04.2019 TO 28.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN
MANORAMA DATED 15.05.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REC STANDARD 15/1979.
EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REC CONSTRUCTION STANDARD B-11.
EXT.R2(c): TURE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(DISTRIBUTION) (CENTRAL) TO THE DIRECTOR (DISTRIBUTION), IT & HRM DATED
17.12.2019.
EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION
SOUTH) TO THE DIRECTOR (DISTRIBUTION & IT) DATED 30.12.2019.
EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION)
NORTH MALABAR, KANNUR DATED 30.12.2019.
EXT.R2(f): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER
(DISTRIBUTION, IT & HRM) DATED 04.02.2020.
EXT.R2(g): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FORWARDED TO THE DIRECTOR
(GENERATION, ELECTRICAL & SCM) BY THE DIRECTOR (DISTRIBUTION IT & HRM)
DATED 05.02.2020.
EXT.R2(h):TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF FULL TIME DIRECTORS DATED
18.02.2020.
EXT.R2(i): TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 18.03.2020.
EXT.R2(j):TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 18.03.2020.
EXT.R2(k): DETAILS OF POLE DAMAGE DURING THE ABOVE SAID PERIOD.
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
