SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Guj) 48

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.J.DIVAN, G.T.NANAVATI
M.J.PUROHIT - Appellant
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,gondal - Respondent
L.P.A. 275 of 1974
Decided On : 03/13/1980

Advocates Appeared: B.J.SHELAT, M.R.ANAND

Headnote:

Gujarat Electricity Board - Rule (2) - Electrical contractor - litigation - Appeal Clause of Letters Patent has been filed against judgment and order of our Brother Special Civil Application - Our Brother dismissed the special civil application and discharged Rule and original Petitioner has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment and order of our l Brother – Held, Conclusion is that in light of case which have been pointed out by affidavit-in-reply it was not necessary for Gujarat Electricity Board when it gave contract of work in respect of electrical installations in the quarters attached to the sub-stations at to engage services of a licensed electrical contractor - No violation on sub-rule (1) of rule 45 took place in this eventuality - However we wish to make it clear that if capacity of Electricity Board had been other than that of supplier sub-rule 1 of rule 45 would certainly apply - Appeal dismissed

B. J. DIVAN, G. T. NANAVATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and order of our learned Brother S. H. Sheth J. in Special Civil Application No. 1181 of 1973. Our learned Brother dismissed the special civil application and discharged the Rule and the original Petitioner has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of our learned Brother.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this litigation are that petitioner No. 1 has been working as an electrical contractor. He is the holder of a license in that behalf under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 and is duly qualified for carrying out electric installation work in Junagadh and surrounding areas. The second petitioner is the Secretary of Gujarat Vijali Contractors Mandal and he thus comes in on behalf of the association of electrical contractors working throughout the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat Electricity Board wanted to carry out electrification work of the staff quarters of the Board at Sardhar Virpur and Talaja. Tenders were invited and petitioner No. 1 submitted his tender. Respondent No. 2 also an electrical contractor though not qualified and licensed to carry on that work and three other persons also submitted their tenders. The tender of respondent No. 2 was accepted though he did not held a license to carry out the work of electrical contractor for installation work and the tender of petitioner No. 1 was rejected. The association of licensed electrical contractors has entered in the present dispute between the first petitioner and the Executive Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board who is the first respondent herein. The petition has been filed by the two petitioners against rejection of the tender of petitioner No. 1 and acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 2. The main question which is required to be considered is under rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 That rule provides as follows:precautions to he adopted by consumers owners 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 low voltage domestic appliances and fittings as in no way alters its capacity or character shall he carried out upon the premises of or on behalf of any consumer or owner for the purpose of supply to such consumer or owner 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 issued or recognised 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 or owners from so much of this sub rule as requires such work to be carried out by an electrical contractor licensed by the State Government in this behalf. UNDER sub rule (2) suppliers are prohibited from connection electrical installations with the supply lines if the installation had not been carried out in accordance with sub rule (1 ). We are not concerned with sub rule (3) of rule 45. It is thus clear that so far as the suppliers are concerned rule 45 clause (2) requires the suppliers to see to it that electrical installations work at any premises is carried out by licensed electrical contractors that is contractors who are licensed by the State Government in this behalf. The electrical contractor must be licensed and the person who supervises the installation work must also be a holder of a certificate of competency issued or recognised by the State Government. Thus in order to prevent








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top