M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an Electrical supervisor and holds a permit to that effect. The permit is issued by a Board constituted under the Indian Electricity rules. His permit has been suspended on an alleged misbehaviour of assaulting an Assistant Engineer of the Karnataka electricity Board. That order was passed on 28-2-1985 and corrected in regard to the date of assault by an order i. e. , corrigendum dated 25-3-1985. Nothing appears to have happened thereafter. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government of Karnataka. That appeal came to be dismissed on the sole ground that it was barred by time. Therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution is filed praying that the order at Annexure-C made by the Chief electrical Inspector may be quashed as the same is without authority of law in as much as the Rules do not provide for action for any misconduct. ( 3 ) THE argument is founded on the employment of the word 'default' in sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 of the Karnataka (Licensing of Electrical Contractors and grant of certificates and permit to Electrical supervisors and Wiremen) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). The said Rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules by the first respondent-State of Karnataka. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 28 of the rules reads as follows :"every permit shall be liable to be suspended whenever it appears to the electrical Inspector to Government that is holder has committed a default. Thereafter the Electrical Inspector to government shall hold an enquiry against the permit holder and forward the report of enquiry with his recommendation to the Government. On consideration of the report of enquiry as well as the recommendation of the electrical Inspector to Government, the State Government may cancel the permit. "the word 'default', it is argued, cannot be equated with misconduct or misbehaviour. It is difficult to accede to that contention. In the scheme of the Rules licensee or a permit holder is subject to the Rules. By Rule 13 certain obligations are imposed on a licenced contractor. Similarly Rule 14 adumberates the disqualification that may be incurred by virtue of any malpractice. It is difficult to accede to that contention. In the scheme of the Rules licensee or a permit holder is subject to the Rules. By Rule 13 certain obligations are imposed on a licenced contractor. Similarly Rule 14 adumberates the disqualification that may be incurred by virtue of any malpractice. Similarly Electrical Supervisors are issued with competent permits under rules 18 and 19 Rule 24 similarly speaks of permits to Wiremen. The permit so issued shall be valid for a year. It is in this scheme of things that sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 must be understood. Therefore, the expression 'default' must be given a wider meaning having regard to the context in which it occurs than what may be found in a standard dictionary. It cannot narrowly be construed to mean only failure to do something which is expected of the permit-holder like payment or failure in carrying out his duties as Electrical Supervisor. Holder of a permit under the Rules cannot be permitted to assault an Officer of the Electricity Board and still be allowed to retain his permit merely because it cannot be taken away except for a 'default' narrowly construed as such. 'default' therefore given a wider meaning to include mis-conduct and misbehaviour would serve the purpose of the Rules. If no action has been taken pursuant to the suspension, it is open to the petitioner to move this Court for a writ of mandamus or direction to complete the enquire and pass appropriate orders. ( 4 ) PETITION is, therefore, rejected. --- *** --- .