IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 176 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.30556/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ KERALA GOVERNMENT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, REGISTER NO.T/529/1995 PWD ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE COMPOOUND, PMG,PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI. R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORK, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS & LOCAL WORKS CENTRAL CIRCLE THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS & LOCAL WORKS NORTH ZONE KOZHIKODE. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD JUDICIAL SECTION, EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM. 7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ELECTRICIAL WING, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WA.No.176 of 2010 : 2 : 8. THE CHIEF ARCHITECT, PUBLIC OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. THE KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R9 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R9 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN FOR R9 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. (R1 TO R8) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.176 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag.C.J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.30556 of 2009. At the time of admission of the matter, the learned Single Judge has passed an interim order, which is extracted in paragraph 3 of the present order impugned, to the following effect:- “Admit. Issue notice to the respondents by speed post returnable in ten days. In view of the stipulations in the Public Works Department Manual, that electrification works in Government buildings should be arranged only through licensed electrical contractors registered in the department, I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 circular in so far as it stipulates that the civil contractor can engage persons licensed by the Electrical Inspectorate to carry out electrical works requires to be stayed. There will accordingly be an W.A.No.176/2010 2 interim order to that effect, until further orders.” 2. The appellant was obviously satisfied with that order. Later, after hearing the parties and after perusing the counter affidavit, prima facie being satisfied that some modification is required in the said order, the learned Single Judge has modified that order, and the operative portion contained in paragraph 11 of the impugned order is as follows:- “11. Therefore, while modifying the interim order allowing the Government to proceed with the finalisation of the tender which have been notified already, there will be a direction to the first and second respondents to consider the grievances raised by the petitioners regarding the possible exclusion of electrical contractors from the tendering process, especially in the light of the report Ext.P2 and evolve such conditions, even by including relevant clauses in the P.W.D. Manual, to avoid monopoly for civil contractors and allay any fears of exclusion of registered electrical contractors from tendering the electrical work. The counter affidavit now filed, has not elaborated on this aspect. It is open to the first respondent to bring in a further circular in this regard. A counter affidavit explaining these aspects will be W.A.No.176/2010 3 filed within six weeks, after considering various matters as directed above.” Thus, it can be seen that the matter is still at large before the learned Single Judge and the parties have opportunity to put forth their respective contentions. 3. In the meanwhile, it is also to be observed that the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the possible exclusion of electrical contractors from the tendering process, being a general issue, can be raised before the Government. The grievance, according to the appellant, is that by giving a combined contract for both civil and electrical work to the exclusion of the electrical contractor may result in monopoly for civil contractors. This is an aspect which has to be considered in the writ petition, after counter affidavit explaining this aspect is filed, within the stipulated time, as ordered by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.176/2010 4 In the above facts and circumstances, taking note of the first interim order and the present order, we do not find, there is any scope for interference at this stage. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE nj.