S S B Enterprises Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

S S B Enterprises Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice (Annexure-F) issued by respondent no.2 demanding submission of Super Grade Licence and Manpower Licence was arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law, warranting quashing by writ of certiorari. +2 more

Court's answer

The petitioner admittedly did not comply with the stipulation in the three-month extension (Annexure-C) to furnish a Super Grade Licence, and that non-compliance led to issuance of the impugned notice at Annexure-F.

Ratio / Principle

Clause 3 of the tender agreement does not entitle the petitioner to extension by default; extension was permissible only on mutual consent, with the additional condition that the awardee's performance during the tender period was satisfactory.

Key takeaways

The requirement of obtaining Super Grade Licence flowed from Board Resolution dated 07.10.2024 and was implemented only after completion of the tender duration; therefore there was sufficient justification for issuance of the notice at Annexure-F.ratio¶49
A challenge directed only at the consequential notice (Annexure-F), without challenging the Board Resolution, would not hold good.ratio¶49
The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-KEB) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by a proprietorship manpower-services contractor (S S B Enterprises) challenging notice dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-F, No.SEE/TR(OP)/SOUTH/EE(O)/AEE-1/F-154/25-26) issued by respondent no.2 (Superintending Engineer, KPTCL) demanding Super Grade Licence and Manpower Licence as a condition for extension of a manpower-supply contract. Held: (i) clause 3 of the tender agreement permitted extension only on mutual consent where the awardee's performance was satisfactory, and not by default; (ii) the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the stipulation in the three-month extension (Annexure-C) to furnish a Super Grade Licence, which led to the impugned notice; (iii) the licence requirement flowed from a Board Resolution dated 07.10.2024 implemented only after completion of the two-year tender term (22.02.2023 to 22.02.2025), giving sufficient justification for the notice; and (iv) a challenge confined to the consequential notice, without assailing the Board Resolution, would not hold good. Writ petition held misconceived and dismissed. Bench: Ravi V Hosmani J (single judge).

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 17614 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

S S B ENTERPRISES NO.25, G-FLOOR, 22^ND MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, GIRINAGAR T BLOCK, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, Y PADAMANABHA REDDY, S/O Y BAYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI K GURUDHATTA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM, CAUVERY BHAVAN, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI K.R.CIRCLE, PARLATTAYA S BANGALORE-01. Location: High Court of Karnataka 2.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) TRANSMISSION (O AND M ) SOUTH CIRCLE, KPTCL, BANGALORE-560009.

THE EXEUCUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) OPERATION DIVISION, SUBRAMANYAPURA, KPTCL, BANGALORE - 560 061.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI UTTUR PADMAVATI SURESH, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.SEE/TR(OP)/SOUTH/EE(O)/AEE-1/F-154/25-26 DATED 02.06.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES DEMANDING SUBMISSION OF SUPER GRADE LICENCE AND MANPOWER LICENCE, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. 2). TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging notice dated 02.06.2025 issued by

respondent no.2 at Annexure-F , this writ petition is filed.

Sri K Gurudhatta, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was a proprietorship concern engaged in providing Manpower Services both skilled and unskilled employees to various private and public sector departments. It was submitted in pursuance of tender invited by respondent no.2 for supply of Grade-2 personnel (16 employees), helpers (16) and house keeping personnel (4) for carrying out shift

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

operations and minor maintenance works within jurisdiction of Transmission (M) BMAZ, South Circle, KPTCL (package-6). It was submitted, duration of tender was from 22.02.2023 till 22.02.2025 as per agreement dated 14.02.2023 at Annexure-

A. Clause 3 thereof provides for period of contract as follows:

3. Period of contract:

Two Years from the date of taking of charge or till posting of KPTCL staff which ever is earlier and may be extended for one more year with mutual consent, if the performance of the awardee is found to be satisfactory at the discretion of KPTCL. The charge shall be taken within one week from the date of issue of this award as per Tender Conditions ."

It was submitted, petitioner successfully completed

period of tender. Thereafter as per clause-3 as above, petitioner was entitled for extension for one more year. It was submitted, said extension could not be denied to petitioner unless he was found unsatisfactory or submitted two other conditions, i.e. if sub-stations were provided with station staff partially or KPTCL itself deputed its staff to perform work. It was submitted since neither of above instances had occurred. Therefore, petitioner was entitled for extension. It was submitted extension was granted to petitioner for a period of three months as per Annexure-C. It was further submitted,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondent had thereafter sought to impose additional conditions namely, requirement of Super Grade Licence which was not part of original tender agreement. On completion of three months period of extension, respondent had issued impugned notice at Annexure-F for withdrawal of extension in case of failure of petitioner to furnish valid Super Grade Licence and Man Power Licence. Hence same was challenged in this writ petition. It was submitted, agreement defined relationship between petitioner and respondent authorities and in absence of any condition in it mandating furnishing of Super Grade Licence, same could not be imposed as a new and additional condition to existing agreement. Therefore impugned notice at Annexure-F was unreasonable and sought for quashing of same.

On other hand, Smt.Padma S Uttur, learned counsel

for respondent opposed writ petition. Referring to statement of objections filed, it was submitted there was no dispute about petitioner being successful tender awardee for Man Power Service as stated and about completion of tender duration of 2 years of same. There was also no dispute about tender

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

agreement at Annexure-A containing provision for extension by one year. It was however submitted, same was subject to condition that extension was on mutual agreement. It was submitted, on 07.03.2024 Board of respondent Corporation passed resolution bearing no.145 of 2012 revoking Services Tender documents and insisting on requirement of tenderer to be Super Grade Electrical Licenced Contractor having valid Manpower Registration Certificate issued by Labour Deportment Government of Karnataka. Therefore, notice was issued to petitioner as per Annexure-C and petitioner intimated of said requiring while providing extension as per Annexure-C. Since petitioner failed to obtain and submit licence, notice at Annexure - F came to be issued. It was submitted, without petitioner questioning Board Resolution requiring Man Power contractors to obtain Super Grade Licence, challenging mere notice would not yield any result. It was further submitted clause - 3 of Agreement merely provide for extension of mutual agreement. Since extension was on condition of petitioner obtaining and furnishing Super Grade Licence and as petitioner had failed to comply with said requirement, respondent did not

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

intend and extend contract with petitioner, therefore sought for dismissal of writ petition.

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

From above, petitioners grievance against issuance of notice at Annexure-F is for requirement of petitioner to obtain and furnish Super Grade Licence midway of contract amounted to varying terms of contracts which was impermissible and therefore sought for quashing. On other hand, respondents contend that said requirement would mandated by Board Resolution, which would apply even to running contracts and insofar as petitioner, demand for compliance was issued only after completion of tender period which was from 22.03.2023 to 22.02.2025.

Perusal of Annexure-C issued to petitioner would reveal that at time of providing extension for a period of three months there was stipulation for furnishing of Super Grade Licence. Admittedly, petitioner has not complied with said requirement, which has led to issuance of impugned notice at Annexure-F. Perusal of clause 3 of tedner agreement would

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38133 WP No. 17614 of 2025

HC-KAR

reveals that extension was permissible only on mutual consent with additional condition that performance of awardee was satisfactory during tender period. Said clause would not indicate that extension was by default and petitioner was entitled for extension except in case respondent - KPTCL deployed its employees to sub-stations.

Admittedly, tender duration is for two years from 22.02.2023 to 22.02.2025. Requirement of obtaining Super Grade Licence is in pursuance of Board Resolution dated 07.10.2024 and its implementation is only after completion of duration of tender. Therefore, there would be sufficient justification for issuance of notice at Annexure-F. Petitioners grievance, if any, would be against resolution of Board. Without challenging said resolution, challenge only against consequential notice at Annexure-F would not hold good.

Hence, writ petition is misconceived and stand dismissed.

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

Psg*

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43