Court declined to disturb the awarded contract, leaving inter-State electrical licensing eligibility open.

The petitioner challenged the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital’s rejection of its bid for installation of swings and electrically driven pulleys during the Maa Nanda Devi Mahotsav, 2026.

The bid was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not possess an electricity safety licence issued by the competent authority in Uttarakhand.

The Nagar Palika submitted that the work order had already been issued to respondent No. 5 on 5 September 2026, the entire amount had been deposited, and the necessary equipment had been transported to the festival site.

The festival was scheduled to commence on 15 September 2026, with at least one week required for installation.

Whether a bidder holding an electricity safety licence issued by the competent authority in Uttar Pradesh could undertake the proposed electrical installation work in Uttarakhand under the e-Procurement notice and Regulation 31 of the 2023 Regulations.

Whether, in view of the imminent commencement of the Maa Nanda Devi Mahotsav and the progress made by the successful bidder, the Court should interfere with the work order issued to respondent No. 5.

The Court considered Regulation 31(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023, which provides that electrical installation work may be carried out only by an electrical contractor licensed by the State Government, under the supervision of a competent person and by a person holding a permit issued or recognised by the State Government.

The second proviso to Regulation 31(1) permits an electrical contractor holding a licence issued by any State Government or Union Territory administration to work without obtaining a licence from the other State only in relation to works executed for or on behalf of the Central Government and installations in mines, oil-fields and railways.

The Court noted the petitioner’s contention that the tender condition did not expressly require an Uttarakhand-issued licence, as well as the opposing submission that Regulation 31 required such licensing for the proposed work.

However, the Court focused on the immediate factual circumstances: the work order had already been issued to respondent No. 5, the required fixtures and electrical appliances had been transported to the site, the festival was due to begin on 15 September 2026, and at least a week was needed to complete installation.

In those circumstances, interference with the work order immediately before the festival would have disrupted the arrangements.

The Court therefore declined to grant relief without adjudicating the substantive licensing question.

The legal question concerning whether a licence issued by another State satisfies the requirements of Regulation 31 and the tender condition was expressly left open for determination in an appropriate case.