Tripura High Court Questions TSECL’s Nomination of Transformer Repair Firm, Bars Future Work Orders to Electro Trans Industries
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, October 14, 2026
The Tripura High Court has restrained the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) and its concerned officials from sending any transformers to Electro Trans Industries, Bodhjung Nagar, for repairs in the future, observing that the firm had been selected through nomination without following a tendering process and that no valid explanation for bypassing the process was provided in the corporation’s counter-affidavit.
The direction was issued by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha on October 6, 2026, in WP(C) No. 660 of 2026, filed by eight electrical businesses and individuals against TSECL and other respondents.
The court also recorded the respondents’ statement that Sai Electricals, Ambassa, would be removed from the list of workshops receiving defective distribution transformers. It directed that no defective distribution transformer should be sent to the firm until further orders.
The most significant observation in the order concerns the selection of Electro Trans Industries, located at the Industrial Growth Centre, Bodhjung Nagar, Agartala.
The respondents contended that the work orders issued pursuant to the letter of award had already been completed and that the petitioners’ prayer concerning the matter had become infructuous.
The High Court, however, observed that Electro Trans Industries had been selected by nomination without following a tendering process. It further noted that the counter-affidavit did not mention any valid explanation for not following the process.
Consequently, the Bench directed that the first ten respondents, comprising TSECL and its concerned authorities and officials, must not send any transformer to Electro Trans Industries for repairs in the future.
The order does not, by itself, establish criminal misconduct or personal corruption by any official. The specific judicial finding concerns the selection by nomination and the absence of a valid explanation for not following the tendering process in the material placed before the court.
The order identifies the following respondents and their respective roles:
1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL)
TSECL is respondent No. 1 and the principal corporate respondent. The court’s adverse observation concerning the nomination of Electro Trans Industries relates to the corporation’s choice of the firm for transformer-repair work. TSECL is covered by the direction prohibiting future transformer repairs being assigned to the firm.
2. Chairman, TSECL
The Chairman of TSECL, who is also identified in the order as the Secretary of the Power Department, Government of Tripura, is respondent No. 2. The Chairman is included among the authorities restrained from sending transformers to Electro Trans Industries. The order does not record a separate personal finding of wrongdoing against the Chairman.
3. Managing Director, TSECL
The Managing Director, based at Bidhyut Bhawan, Agartala, is respondent No. 3. The Managing Director is covered by the court’s restraint on sending transformers to Electro Trans Industries. No separate allegation or individual finding against the Managing Director is specified in the order.
4. Director (Technical), TSECL
The Director (Technical), TSECL, is respondent No. 4. The official is included in the group of respondents restrained from sending transformers to Electro Trans Industries for future repairs. The order does not identify a separate act personally committed by this official.
5. General Manager (Technical), TSECL
The General Manager (Technical), TSECL, is respondent No. 5. The official is covered by the same restraint. The order does not record an independent finding of personal misconduct against the General Manager.
6. Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division, Kamalpur
The Deputy General Manager of the Kamalpur Electrical Division, Dhalai district, is respondent No. 6. The official is included among the authorities bound by the court’s direction concerning Electro Trans Industries. No separate personal allegation against this official is detailed in the order.
7. Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division, Ambassa
The Deputy General Manager of the Ambassa Electrical Division, Dhalai district, is respondent No. 7. The official is covered by the restraint on sending transformers to Electro Trans Industries. The order does not make a separate finding of personal wrongdoing against this official.
8. Deputy General Manager, Testing and Communication Division, Agartala
The Deputy General Manager of the Testing and Communication Division, Agartala, is respondent No. 8. The official is included in the group restrained from sending transformers to Electro Trans Industries. No individual finding of misconduct is recorded against this official in the order.
9. Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division, Udaipur
The Deputy General Manager of the Udaipur Electrical Division, Gomati district, is respondent No. 9. The official is covered by the court’s direction regarding future transformer-repair assignments to Electro Trans Industries. The order does not specify a separate personal allegation against this official.
10. Deputy General Manager, Material Management Division, Agartala
The Deputy General Manager of the Material Management Division, Agartala, is respondent No. 10. The official is included in the restraint imposed on the first ten respondents. The order does not record a separate finding of personal wrongdoing against this official.
11. Sai Electricals, Ambassa
Sai Electricals, Ambassa, Dhalai district, is respondent No. 11. During the proceedings, the respondents stated that the firm would be removed from the list of workshops receiving defective distribution transformers, as referred to in the memorandum dated November 24, 2025.
The High Court placed that statement on record and directed that no defective distribution transformer be sent to Sai Electricals until further orders. The order does not record a final finding of wrongdoing against the firm.
12. Electro Trans Industries, Bodhjung Nagar
Electro Trans Industries, situated at the Industrial Growth Centre, Bodhjung Nagar, Agartala, is respondent No. 12.
The specific issue concerning this firm was its selection by nomination without a tendering process. The High Court observed that no valid explanation for bypassing the process had been provided in the counter-affidavit.
The court consequently restrained TSECL and respondents 2 to 10, along with the corporation itself, from sending any transformer to the firm for repairs in the future. The order does not establish criminal liability or personal corruption by the firm or its representatives.
The writ petition was filed by:
Indrajit Deb Sarma, proprietor of M/s Tripureswari Electrical Works, Matabari, Udaipur.
The Tripura Electrical House, Dharmanagar, represented by partner and constituted attorney Debdulal Bhattacharjee.
Sahil Miah, proprietor of Farhan Varieties, Badharghat Industrial Estate, Agartala.
Manika Sinha, proprietor of Angell Electrical Services Ltd., Charilam, Bishramganj.
Joy Kumar Sinha, proprietor of M/s Energy Station, Nakful, Halhali.
Shishir Kumar Nandi, whose office is located at Durgapur, near the Panchayat Office, Birchandra Nagar, Kailashahar.
Agartala Trafo, represented by its partners Debasmita Saha and Bikram Ghosh.
Bikram Ghosh, proprietor of M/s Ghosh Electrical Engineering, Udaipur.
Advocates Suman Bhattacharjee and Prasenjit Shil appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Kushal Deb, Pradyot Maishan and Mismi Debbarma appeared for the respondents.
Questions of transparency and accountability
The High Court’s observations bring the corporation’s procedure for selecting transformer-repair workshops under judicial scrutiny. The absence of a valid explanation for choosing Electro Trans Industries by nomination rather than through a tendering process is the specific concern recorded in the order.
The case also highlights the importance of transparent decision-making in public-sector procurement, where the selection of service providers should be supported by an appropriate process and a defensible explanation for any departure from competitive tendering requirements.
However, the order should not be construed as a finding that every official named as a respondent personally participated in an irregularity. The court imposed a collective restraint on the first ten respondents and made a specific observation concerning the method used to select Electro Trans Industries.
The High Court has listed WP(C) No. 660 of 2026 for further hearing on November 19, 2026.
more news...