Facts of the Case

The batch of writ petitions arose from a common controversy concerning tenders issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) and respective Electricity Supply Companies for providing manpower services to carry out shift operations and minor maintenance works at 220 kV/66/11 kV and 66/11 kV sub-stations. Since the controversy was common, the High Court principally narrated the facts of W.P. No. 65 of 2021 and decided all connected petitions by a common order.

In the lead petition, Sharada Electricals and another challenged the notice inviting tender dated 10 November 2020 issued by KPTCL for providing manpower services for shift operations and minor maintenance works at 66 kV sub-stations situated at Mallappanahalli, Godabanalu, Vijapura and Nerlagunte. The connected petitions challenged similar tender notifications concerning substantially the same nature of work.

The petitioners claimed to be Class-I and Super Grade Electrical Contractors licensed under the Karnataka (Licensing of Electrical Contractors, Special Wiring Permit and Grant of Certificates and Permits to Electrical Supervisors and Wiremen’s) Rules, 2012. Their case was that Super Grade contractors were entitled to undertake works relating to sub-stations exceeding 33 kV, while Class-I contractors could handle work up to 33 kV, subject to the applicable statutory framework.

Earlier, a tender issued in 2017 had become the subject matter of W.P. No. 202507 of 2017, in which an interim order was granted. Thereafter, KPTCL adopted a framework under which shift operations and maintenance requirements at its stations could be met through eligible manpower agencies. The relevant circular contemplated tendering for shift operations and maintenance at 220 kV, 110 kV and 66 kV stations through manpower agencies, with safety-related institutional arrangements.

The impugned tender structure required experience in providing manpower services. According to the petitioners, this effectively displaced licensed electrical contractors who had historically undertaken such work and favoured manpower-supply agencies.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether KPTCL and the concerned ESCOMs could legally invite tenders from manpower service providers for carrying out shift operations and minor maintenance works at high-voltage sub-stations.
  2. Whether such tender conditions violated the Electricity Act, 2003, the applicable Central Electricity Authority safety regulations, particularly Regulations 3.3, 7 and 29, and the Karnataka licensing framework of 2012.
  3. Whether the requirement that bidders should possess experience as manpower service providers arbitrarily excluded Class-I and Super Grade licensed electrical contractors.
  4. Whether the impugned tenders were arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  5. Whether the controversy had already been concluded by the earlier decision in Karnataka State Shift Duties and Maintenance Electrical Contractors Welfare Association vs State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 10639 of 2019, subsequently affirmed in Karnataka State Shift Duties and Maintenance Electrical Contractors vs State of Karnataka, W.A. No. 313 of 2020, decided on 07 April 2022.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners contended that procuring and executing the concerned work through manpower agencies lacking the requisite electrical licence or experience in handling shift operations was contrary to the regulatory framework traceable to the Electricity Act, 2003.

They argued that the tenders were deliberately structured to exclude Super Grade and Class-I electrical contractors because the eligibility conditions required the bidder to be a manpower service provider and to possess previous experience in supplying manpower to Government departments, governmental agencies or establishments.

According to the petitioners, licensed electrical contractors ordinarily did not operate as registered manpower agencies. Therefore, the eligibility conditions effectively kept them outside the zone of consideration despite their technical experience and licensing credentials.

It was further contended that the tender structure was arbitrary and designed to favour a particular class of tenderers. The petitioners alleged that they had been excluded from competition after having pursued earlier litigation and obtained interim protection.

The petitioners also sought to distinguish the earlier decision in W.P. No. 10639 of 2019 by arguing that the previous proceedings did not specifically adjudicate the allegation that the tender itself had been designed to favour a particular category of bidder. They consequently invoked Article 14 of the Constitution and sought quashing of the tender notifications.

Respondents’ Arguments

KPTCL and the other respondents opposed the petitions on the ground that the controversy was already covered by the earlier judgment in Karnataka State Shift Duties and Maintenance Electrical Contractors Welfare Association vs State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 10639 of 2019.

The respondents submitted that the Coordinate Bench had already upheld the policy framework permitting personnel to be hired through manpower agencies for shift operations and maintenance of sub-stations. That judgment had subsequently been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 313 of 2020 by judgment dated 07 April 2022.

They contended that the earlier proceedings had already considered substantially the same arguments relating to electrical licensing, Regulation 3.3, Regulation 7, safety requirements and engagement of manpower agencies.

The respondents further maintained that the work contemplated under the tenders was not equivalent to unrestricted electrical installation work. Qualified engineers, supervisors and technicians would function within the prescribed safety structure and under the supervision arrangements established by KPTCL.

It was also argued that continuing interim orders were obstructing necessary work at sub-stations and adversely affecting their functioning.

Court Order / Findings

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions and declined to interfere with the impugned tender notifications.

The Court found that the central controversy had already been substantially considered by a Coordinate Bench in Karnataka State Shift Duties and Maintenance Electrical Contractors Welfare Association vs State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 10639 of 2019. In that case, the challenge concerned the KPTCL policy/circular framework for engaging personnel through manpower agencies for shift operations and maintenance of sub-stations.

The earlier Coordinate Bench had held that KPTCL had nominated Nodal Officers as Electrical Safety Officers to ensure observance of prescribed safety measures. Tender documents were thereafter prepared for hiring personnel through manpower agencies to carry out shift operations and maintenance under such supervision.

A crucial finding in the earlier judgment was that manpower agencies were not themselves carrying out electrical installation work so as to attract the petitioners’ objection under Regulation 3.3 in the manner asserted. The required safety measures were to be ensured through qualified engineers, supervisors and technicians under Regulation 7.

The High Court in the present batch held that the impugned tender notifications were consistent with the position already upheld by the Coordinate Bench. It observed that the qualification requiring a tenderer to have provided manpower services was also within the controversy previously considered. Therefore, the binding Coordinate Bench decision prevented the Court from reopening substantially the same issue merely on a reformulated challenge.

The Court further placed significant reliance on the fact that the earlier judgment had been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 313 of 2020 on 07 April 2022.

Accordingly, the challenge alleging arbitrariness and inconsistency with the regulatory framework was rejected, and the petitions questioning the tender notifications for manpower services concerning shift operations and minor maintenance were dismissed.

Important Clarification

The judgment draws an important legal distinction between:

(a) electrical installation work, which is governed by statutory licensing, competency and safety requirements; and

(b) procurement of manpower services for shift operations and minor maintenance, performed within a structured system involving qualified personnel, prescribed training and supervision by KPTCL’s nominated safety officers.

The decision should therefore not be read as permitting unqualified persons to perform any and every electrical installation, repair or high-voltage work. The Court’s reasoning is tied to the particular nature and scope of the tendered services, the regulatory safety framework, and the supervisory mechanism recognised in the earlier binding judgments.

The judgment also reinforces that once a Coordinate Bench has adjudicated substantially the same legal controversy and that decision has been affirmed by a Division Bench, a subsequent Single Bench ordinarily cannot reopen the issue merely because the challenge is presented through a different tender notification or a slightly reformulated argument.

Further, the decision recognises KPTCL’s choice of procurement model as falling within the realm of policy, where judicial interference under Article 226 is not warranted merely because licensed contractors prefer a different eligibility structure, unless arbitrariness, irrationality or illegality is established.

Sections / Constitutional Provisions / Regulations Involved

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Challenge based on alleged arbitrariness, discriminatory exclusion and unreasonable tender conditions.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Parent statutory framework governing the electricity sector and safety-related regulatory measures.

Section 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Regulation-making power of the Central Electricity Authority, referred to in the context of the applicable regulations.

Regulation 3.3 – Requirements concerning designation of persons to operate and carry out work on electrical lines and apparatus, including competency or electrical work permit requirements.

Regulation 7 – Safety measures for operation and maintenance of transmission and distribution systems, including qualifications and training requirements for engineers, supervisors and technicians.

Regulation 29 – Precautions to be adopted by consumers, owners, occupiers, electrical contractors, electrical workmen and suppliers in relation to electrical installation work. The Division Bench’s consideration of Regulation 29 formed part of the binding appellate background relied upon by the Court.

Karnataka (Licensing of Electrical Contractors, Special Wiring Permit and Grant of Certificates and Permits to Electrical Supervisors and Wiremen’s) Rules, 2012 – Licensing framework governing Super Grade, Class-I and other categories of electrical contractors.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783070292_400compressed.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.