Judgment :- B.N. Patnaik, J. The petitioner in O.P. 10264 of 1995 is the appellant in the W.A.444 of 1997. The petitioner and the respondents in O.P. 17244 of 1995 and those of Writ Appeal arising out of O.P. 10264 of 1995 are the same persons. In both the cases a common question of law has been raised and hence both were heard together. This common judgment is being passed in both the cases. The appellant had challenged the judgment of the learned single judge by which a condition laid down in the tender notice Ext. P15 issued by the Executive Engineer, Telecommunication Electrical Division, Ernakulam was held valid. 2. The appellant in the Writ Appeal who is the petitioner in the Original Petition states that he is the holder of a valid high tension electrical licence Grade -A issued by the Electrical Licensing Board, Tamil Nadu, the number being E.A./1720 dated 6th December, 1993. The licence was valid till 5.12.1995. Ext. P15 dated 17.5.1995 of O.P. 10264 of 1995 (W.A. 444 of 1997) is a tender notice issued by the Electrical Engineer, Telecom Electrical Division by which tenders were invited from approved and eligible firms who were holding valid licence issued by the Kerala State Electrical Inspectorate for carrying out high tension works in the State of Kerala. In O.P. No. 17244 of 1995 the Executive Engineer (Electrical) Telecommunication, Ernakulam (the third respondent) again invited tenders for certain high tension works by its tender notice dated 20.10.1995. It is stipulated in the tender notice that tender schedule for high tension works shall only be issued to the firms having valid licence/ permits issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board. The Executive Engineer (Telecom) declined to issue the tender forms to the petitioner-appellant on the ground that he does not hold a licence of Kerala State Electricity Board. It is contended by the petitioner-appellant that the stipulation in the aforesaid two tender notices are invalid on the ground that it violates the provisions of Arts.14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated by him that he had undertaken various works for the telecommunication department on the basis of periodic tenders or quotations invited by the said department. The contract was accepted on the basis of the certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu State. It is further stated by him that he had undertaken various works for the telecommunication department on the basis of periodic tenders or quotations invited by the said department. The contract was accepted on the basis of the certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu State. In another State, such restriction is imposed and no such condition is laid down in any of the tender notices issued by the telecommunication department of andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. For the first time, in the State of Kerala, such a condition is laid down which is detrimental to the equity and right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is further stated by the petitioner that under Ext. P 29 dated4.11.1965 of O.P. 10264 of 1996, the Government of India has taken the view that R.45(1) of the Indian Electricity Rules will not apply for works under the telecommunication department. 3. The common case of all the respondents is that the Government of Kerala by its letter No. 6904/A3/93/PD dated 16.8.1993 (Ext. R1 in O.P. 10264/95) intimated the Chief General Manager, Telecommunications Department, Thiruvananthapuram and the Chief Postmaster General, P & T Department, Thiruvananthapuram that execution of electrical works engaging persons who do not have valid licence/permits issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board is a violation of R.45(1) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The Government therefore requested to ensure that such works are entrusted only to those who have got valid licence/permits issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board. It is further stated by the respondents that proviso to R.45(1) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 lays down that no electrical contractor who has not obtained a valid licence from the State licensing authority is entitled to undertake high tension electric line work of the departments of the Central Government. Since the petitioner-appellant does not possess such a licence, he is not entitled to undertake any such work. The condition stipulated in the tender notice does not violate any equality clause of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned single judge held that the condition of the tender notice under challenge is a valid one and is not violative of constitutional provisions. The condition stipulated in the tender notice does not violate any equality clause of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned single judge held that the condition of the tender notice under challenge is a valid one and is not violative of constitutional provisions. He further held that conditions prevailing in different States may vary and in view of the peculiar conditions prevailing in this State, insistence on having a valid licence of this State for undertaking such hazardous electrical work of any department of the Central Government within the State cannot be said to be a condition creating discrimination between the persons similarly situated. He further held that proviso to R.45(1) being valid and as the petitioner admittedly does not possess a licence issued by this State and in the absence of any notification exempting such persons to undertake such electrical works in this State without obtaining a licence, denial of grant of tender documents to the petitioner-appellant is justified. 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the condition stipulated in the tender notices as said above in pursuance of the request of the State Government not to issue tenders to the electrical contractors who do not possess a licence of this State being not exempted by any notification under R.45(1) of the Electricity Rules is a valid one. 6. R.45 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 reads as follows: "Precautions to be adopted by consumers, owners, occupiers, 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 be carried out upon the premises of or on behalf any consumer, supplier, owner or occupier for the purpose of supply to such consumer or owner occupier 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 and by a person holding a permit 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, suppliers, owners or occupiers, 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, (2) No electrical installation work which has been carried out in contravention of sub-r.(1) shall be either be energized or connected to the works of any supplier," All that the proviso states is that the State Government may by notification exempt the application of R.45 in respect of the works of the Central Government undertaken by any electrical contractor having no licence of the State Government. Neither party has produced any such notification. The State Government has not exempted any electrical contractor to undertake electrical works of the Central Government in the State without having a licence of the State authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant contends that the petitioner in fact is a sub-contractor under the telecommunication department and as such he is not obliged to comply with the direction of the State Government in this regard. Moreover, it is contended that it is open to him to get the work done through the licenced contractors which is not forbidden under any rule, 8. Ext. P29of O.P, 10264 of 1995 is a copy of the communication from the Director General, Post & Telegraph, New Delhi, dated 4.11.1965 regarding R.45(1) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, It is stated that there is no need for getting exemption under R.45(1) of the Rules from the State Government and the works relating to electrical installation in the P & T department will continue to be executed, by the department staff. The correctness of the legal position as stated in Ext. P29 has not been challenged nor refuted, The principal who undertakes the work is the P & T Department and the petitioner-appellant is a sub-contractor. The correctness of the legal position as stated in Ext. P29 has not been challenged nor refuted, The principal who undertakes the work is the P & T Department and the petitioner-appellant is a sub-contractor. There is no dispute that the petitioner appellant has undertaken and completed several such works in the State of Kerala prior to the restriction imposed by the State Government. There was no occasion "for the P & T Department to make any complaint about the work done by him. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that he is not competent to do the work. There is no designated authority in the centre who can issue any such licence. It is left to the State authority to issue such licence. It is true as has been said by learned single judge that the conditions obtaining in different States may be different. But the nature and quality of electrical work for and on behalf of the P & T Department cannot differ from State to State. If a contractor having licence of one State is competent to undertake the work of the P & T Department in another State, there can be no presumption that he is incompetent to do similar works in this State on behalf of the same department. The direction of the State Government not to issue such contract works to him contrary to the instructions contained in Ext. P29 does not, therefore, appear to be valid. Consequently, the condition stipulated in the tender notice as said above is invalid and inoperative, In B. Rajkumar Patra v. Union of India & Ors, (AIR 1981 Grissa 143) R.N. Misra, C, J. (as he then was) laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court that even if a person does not have the requisite certificate in terms of R.45, there is no restriction upon a contractor getting his work done through a sub-agency satisfying the requirements of R.45. We agree with the aforesaid observation of the Orissa High Court. In this view of the matter, we find that the denial of issue of tender papers to the petitioner-appellant is not justified, 9. We agree with the aforesaid observation of the Orissa High Court. In this view of the matter, we find that the denial of issue of tender papers to the petitioner-appellant is not justified, 9. The question about the unconstitutionality of R, 45 is not necessary to be decided in this case in view of our conclusion that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed under the Electricity Rules. We therefore, do not agree with the finding of the learned single judge, regarding the validity of the impugned conditions in the tender notices. 10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal and the Writ Petition are allowed. We hold that the condition as stipulated in Ext. P15 in O.P. 10264/95 and Ext. P19 in O.P. 17244/95 to the effect that tender schedule for high tension works shall only be issued to the firms having valid licence/permits issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board is Invalid and inoperative. No costs.