Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S. Anjaiah Earth Movers vs The Telangana State Power ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1190 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1190 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2022

Telangana High Court
M/S. Anjaiah Earth Movers vs The Telangana State Power ... on 16 March, 2022
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

                     WRIT PETITION No.13374 of 2022
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Malladi Pavan Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the Mrs. A.Deepthi, learned Standing Counsel for

Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (TSGENCO)

appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the present Writ Petition

is being disposed of at the admission stage.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the

order passed by respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.EE/AEE/CIVIL-

SDI/RTS/RDM/F(Ash Pond)/D.No.127/22, dated 08.03.2022, terminating the

contract upon extraneous considerations and without any valid reason, as

arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that without putting

the petitioner on notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing, the

impugned termination order has been passed. That as per the earlier order

passed by the authorities themselves, the time for lifting the ash from the

Ash Pond-A of RTS-B, Ramagundam, during the period from 10.02.2022

to 31.03.2022 is extended up to 31.03.2022, but the authorities have

abruptly passed the impugned order terminating the contract of lifting of

ash with immediate effect i.e., from 08.03.2022. Learned counsel has

further stated that the petitioner has invested huge amounts for the purpose

of lifting the ash from the identified area and in case, the permission

granted earlier is terminated abruptly, the petitioner will be put to great

hardship and irreparable loss.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents, has stated that the petitioner was permitted to lift the ash at

free of cost, as there was no demand for lifting of the ash from the ash

pond, but subsequently, the demand for the pond ash has been increased

tremendously, and the NTPC, Ramagundam, has got the highest bid price

of Rs.402/- per Metric Ton plus taxes. In view of the same, the official

respondents have taken a decision to provide ash through transparent

bidding prices only and to that effect, they have issued a tender

notification on 08.03.2022 and the price bids were opened on 15.03.2022.

That even if the minimum rate of Rs.50/- per Metric Ton is fixed, the

official respondents will approximately get Rs.1.58 Crore per annum. As

the petitioner was permitted to lift the fly ash free of cost, they have no

vested right to seek continuation of the permission granted earlier. Learned

Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 12 of the

terms and conditions of the authorization granted to the petitioner, which

reads as under:

"The TSGENCO reserves right to cancel the authorization on its own discretion and non compliance of the directives related with safety security, allocated location etc."

5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ABL International

Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited,1 the same

is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner is bound

by the terms and conditions, which were annexed to the authorization

letter.

6. Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or

illegality with the impugned order. However, if the petitioner is so

advised, they are free to participate in the future tender process, but they

do not have any vested right to continue with the authorization granted in

their favour earlier.

7. In view of the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

However, time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises by

19.03.2022. If the petitioner does not voluntarily vacate the premises by

2004 SCC 553

19.03.2022, the official respondents can take necessary action for taking

over the possession of the subject premises.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J 16th March, 2022.

Plv/va

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter