Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. George Sebastian, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. K. Saneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

2. The appeal is at the instance of the 5th respondent in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 47655 of 2025. In the writ petition, the 1st respondent herein, the writ petitioner, prayed inter alia for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to proceed with the remaining electrical installation works without NOC from the 5th respondent, the appellant herein, under Rule 13(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board Rules, 2020 (KSELB Rules, 2020).

3. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition appear to be that the writ petitioner wanted to establish a manufacturing unit at KINFRA Techno Industrial Park, Kakkanchery, Malappuram District, and for that purpose has entered into a contract with the present appellant, an A-Class Electrical Contractor, for the purpose of completing the electrical installations in the proposed industrial unit. The petitioner alleged that without completing the work based on the scheme of wiring and installations, in respect of which the 5th respondent got approval from the Electrical Inspectorate, the 5th respondent submitted a completion plan without proper authorisation from the petitioner. Consequently, as the works were incomplete and not in tune with the approved scheme of the Electrical Inspectorate, the completion certificate was not accepted and the petitioner was compelled to engage a new contractor by spending huge amounts.

4. It is further alleged that since the 5th respondent failed to fulfil the obligations arising from the contract by not completing the work in its entirety as per the scheme approved, the petitioner was compelled to obtain the assistance of another approved licensed electrical contractor for completing the remaining work and in the said process, incurred certain expenses. Therefore, seeking to recover damages in respect of the same, the writ petitioner has already instituted a suit being O.S. No. 191 of 2025 filed before the Sub Court, Tirur seeking for a decree for a sum of Rs. 14,10,400/- towards damages and a further sum of Rs. 2,72,361/- being the balance amount after adjusting the work already carried out by the 5th respondent contractor in the writ petition from the remuneration provided to the said respondent. The said suit is pending.

5. Later, when the writ petitioner took steps to complete the work, the application to engage the new contractor was not entertained by the Electrical Inspector for want of an NOC from the 5th respondent as contemplated under Rule 30(5) of the KSELB Rules, 2020. The contention of the writ petitioner appears to be that in view of the pending dispute between the writ petitioner and the 5th respondent, the said condition cannot be fulfilled. This contention of the appellant did not find favour with the respondent authorities resulting in the writ petition being filed. The 5th respondent contested the said proceedings essentially raising issues that mostly touch upon the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent.

6. The issue before the learned Single Judge was whether, in view of the pendency of the civil suit where the writ petitioner has claimed damages and return of consideration after adjustment, the respondent authorities could have disregarded such facts and insisted on an NOC to be produced by the 5th respondent.

7. In short, the submission was that the petitioner cannot be compelled to perform an impossible act and in that regard observation by this Court in Archana Varghese v. District Collector Pathanamthitta (2015 (2) KHC 39) wherein at paragraph 12 the maxim “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” was discussed while interpreting statutory provisions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 was emphasised. Similarly, the decision of this Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another( 2016 (3) KHC 803) , where the question regarding the requirement of consent of the landlord that was insisted upon for the purpose of renewal of a licence under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, as stipulated under Section 492(3) thereof, was considered and it was held that the application for renewal of licence can be considered even in cases where the landlord purposefully withheld the consent. It was on the basis of such legal principles, it was argued that insisting for an NOC in the given facts and circumstances would be unjustified and cannot be insisted upon as the 5th respondent would obviously not give consent for engagement of any contractor as it might result in conceding to a claim of the writ petitioner that the work was not in accordance with the approval granted by the Electrical Inspector.

8. The present appellant has contested the said proceedings essentially on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Opto Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank & Others ((2021) 6 SCC 707) and Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling Company ((1984) 3 SCC 258) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the work has already been carried out by the 5th respondent, the appellant herein, even before the writ petition is filed, and they have spent Rupees fifteen lakhs towards the same by engaging another contractor. It is thus argued that in view of Rule 30(5) of the KSELB Rules 2020, the authorities concerned cannot waive the NOC. For better appreciation of the said argument, it is necessary to refer to Rule 30(5) of the KSELB Rules, 2020, which reads as follows:-

                  “(5) If the entire or a portion of an electrical installation work, the scheme for which has been forwarded to the Chief Electrical Inspector or his nominee under the seal and signature of a contractor as provided in sub-rule (3) above and approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector or his nominee is intended to be executed by another contractor. The same shall be forwarded by a condition that:-

                  If entry of the second Contractor is necessitated due to termination of the contract between the owner of the installation and the first contractor, no objection certificate from the first Contractor together with an undertaking singed by the owner of the installation and the second contractor that the electrical installation work shall be carried out as per the scheme submitted by the first contractor and approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector or his nominee, shall be submitted to the Chief Electrical Inspector or his nominee and the second Contractor shall commence the work only after obtaining the fresh approval for change of contractor from the Chief Electrical Inspector or his nominee. If any dispute arises the same shall be referred to the Secretary.”

9. The crux of the matter lies in as to whether the entry of the 2nd contractor is necessitated due to termination of the contract by the owner of the installation and the 1st contractor and, if so, whether no objection certificate from the 1st contractor together with an undertaking signed by the owner of the installation and the 2nd contractor that the electrical installation work shall be carried out as per the scheme submitted by the 1st contractor and approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector or his nominees could be insisted upon. It was on satisfaction being recorded as to the necessity for the termination of the contract with the 1st contractor and appointment of the 2nd contractor that the right of the owner to engage the 2nd contractor for the purpose of completing the residual work would arise. At the same time, it may not be necessary for the respondent authorities to really go into the nitty-gritty of the matter; however, it has to be seen as to whether the work executed by the 1st contractor was in accordance with the work approved by the Electrical Inspectorate. It was limited to that purpose that the learned Single Judge, after elaborate discussions on Rule 13(5) qua the present facts and circumstances of the case, has directed the 2nd respondent, namely, the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board (KSELB), to take a decision acting upon Ext. P8, which is the representation submitted by the writ petitioner, and pass an order in accordance with law by exercising the powers vested upon him under the Rules after giving the petitioner and the present appellant an opportunity of being heard. The contention of the present appellant has also been taken note of when the learned Single Judge observed as follows:-

                  “It is further ordered that, as observed above, in case it is found that the nature of the dispute and the resolution of dispute involved in the matter is beyond the powers vested upon the Secretary for 2nd respondent, being a civil dispute, appropriate orders shall be passed, including the direction to the 5th respondent to issue an NOC, without prejudice to its right to invoke the civil remedies, by the fixing a specific timeline within which such NOC is to be issued.”

10. It may also be noted that after filing of the suit by the writ petitioner, the 5th respondent / the appellant herein, has filed a counter-suit and both the suits are pending. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

11. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition, since the respondent authorities are statutory authorities and the contention appears to be that they have insisted on compliance of a clause in the contract, which is unreasonable and arbitrary, we are of the view that the writ petition is maintainable. If the respondent authority acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, such decision can always be reviewed in a writ petition.

12. The writ appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

However, there would be no order as to costs.