Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital

Order Date: 8 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/S Zenith Event & Services; Respondents – State of Uttarakhand, Nagar Palika Parishad Nainital, and other respondents (including respondent no. 5).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (Misc. Bench No. 735 of 2026) challenging the rejection of Zenith Event’s bid for installation of swings and electrically driven pulleys for the Maa Nanda Devi Mahotsav 2026.
  • Key Dates: e‑Procurement notice issued on 11 August 2026; work order issued to respondent no. 5 on 5 September 2026; Mahotsav scheduled to commence on 15 September 2026; judgment delivered on 8 September 2026.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: The e‑procurement notice (Clause 15) did not stipulate that the electricity safety licence must be issued by the competent authority of Uttarakhand. Zenith Event holds a licence issued by the competent authority of Uttar Pradesh, which it claims satisfies the requirement.
  • Respondents’ Arguments: Citing Regulation 31 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023, they argue that only a licence issued by the State Government where the work is to be executed (Uttarakhand) is valid, except for works for the Central Government, mines, oil‑fields, and railways where a licence from any State suffices.
  • Regulation 31 Excerpt:

“No electrical installation work … shall be carried out … except by an electrical contractor licenced … by the State Government … Provided further that … an electrical contractor having licence issued by any State Government or Union Territory administration shall not require licence from other State Government in which the works are to be executed.”

  • Additional Facts: Respondent no. 5 has already deposited the full amount as per the e‑procurement conditions, transported all necessary fixtures and electrical appliances to the mela site, and requires approximately one week to complete installation before the Mahotsav begins.

Final Outcome

  • The Court disposed of the writ petition, holding that any interference with the work order at this stage would not be warranted given the proximity of the Mahotsav and the readiness of the contractor.
  • The Court, however, left the question of law regarding the applicability of Regulation 31 open for future consideration.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Electrical Licensing