These writ petitions are filed by the respective Associations of Government Electrical Contractors, aggrieved by the circulars issued by the Government changing the procedure for tender of civil and electrical works under the Government, which according to them, is in violation of the provisions of P.W.D. Manual as well as Article 14 of the Constitution. W.P.(C) No.30556/2009 is treated as the leading case and the exhibits are referred to as marked therein.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners in a nutshell are the following: The members of the Associations are electrical contractors. As per the procedure prescribed under the

P.W.D. Manual and Code and the practice which was being followed throughout, electrical and civil contracts would be tendered separately. Assessment of the requirements of electrical works can only be determined on completion of the structure of the building. Earlier, as soon as the structure of a building is about to be completed, electrical wing of the P.W.D. would invite tenders for carrying out the electrical work. It was insisted that the electrical contractors should have registration with P.W.D. and must be having a licence granted by the Electrical Inspectorate of the State Government. By Ext.P1, the Government envisaged composite tender for both civil and electrical works and stipulated that all civil works and electrical works should be tendered simultaneously and the electrical work carried along with the civil works. The petitioners have raised certain complaints in the matter and it is averred in the writ petition that the second respondent convened a meeting of the Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of simultaneous tendering. A letter was thereafter forwarded to the Government as per Ext.P2 detailing both advantages and disadvantages. It is further averred that without considering anything, by Ext.P3 circular the system was changed by the Government whereby freedom was given to the civil contractor to submit a single tender and to engage an electrical contractor for all building works where the estimate amount exceeds Rupees One Crore, who will be persons or agencies who have approved licence from Electrical Inspectorate. It was also specified that registration of electrical contractors/electricians with PWD would not be a precondition. It is a contention of the petitioner that as a result thereof, the tendering of electrical contracts will be the monopoly of civil contractors which is against the provisions of the P.W.D. Manual.

3. After this Court passed the interim order on 28.10.2009, another circular was issued as per Ext.P6, stipulating that registration of electrical contractors /electricians with

P.W.D. will be a precondition for carrying out electrical works in P.W.D. Licence from Electrical Inspectorate alone will not be sufficient. This Court considered the matter subsequently and passed an elaborate interim order on 28.1.2010 whereby respondents 1 and 2 were directed to consider the grievance raised by the petitioners regarding the possible exclusion of electrical contractors from the tendering process. Again, Ext.P8 circular has been issued. The petitioners contend that theaspects directed to be considered by this Court as per the interim order have not been considered and Ext.P8 is only a reiteration of Ext.P6. It is further stipulated in Ext.P8 that the civil contractors who take up PWD works will indicate the names of electrical contractors and proof of their registration with PWD and electrical inspectorate. It is also mentioned that only registered electrical contractors will be considered for electrical works. It is pointed out that the main grievance raised by the petitioners have not been considered at all in the light of the disadvantages pointed out in Ext.P2 and as directed by this Court. The petitioners therefore challenge Exts.P3, P6 and P8 circulars. The averments in W.P.(C) No.28113/2009