Telangana High Court
The Telangana Industrial ... vs State Bank Of India on 4 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 578 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T. Rajnikanth Reddy, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for appellants and
Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for State
Bank of India, appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The instant appeal arises out of the second round of
litigation between State Bank of India (for short 'the bank')
and the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
Limited, the appellants herein. The whole issue relates to
implementation of a project in a land allotted in favour of the
bank for construction of office building. In the earlier Writ
Petition, W.P.No.12725 of 2021, the bank had sought
quashing of the proceedings dated 22.01.2021 and 28.12.2020
issued by appellant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, as arbitrary,
illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. In that
proceedings, contained in letters dated 28.12.2020 and
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
22.01.2021, cancellation order was passed. The learned writ
Court set aside the cancellation order and directed respondent
No.2 to reconsider the request submitted before appellant No.1
on 01.09.2020 and pass appropriate orders. The impugned
Writ Petition, W.P.No.35923 of 2024, was preferred by the
bank being aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by
the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Telangana
Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, appellant No.1
herein, whereby the allotment of land was cancelled and
possession was resumed and the bank was requested to come
forward to execute the cancellation deed to the sale agreement.
During pendency of the impugned Writ Petition, the order
dated 09.12.2024 was withdrawn in compliance of the order
passed in the earlier Writ Petition, W.P.No.12725 of 2021.
After taking note of this and observing that the impugned Writ
Petition does not survive for adjudication any more, the
learned writ Court disposed of the same and issued further
direction upon the appellants and respondent No.2 to consider
the request of the bank for initiation of appropriate steps
forthwith for implementation of the subject project within a
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
order though the specific recommendations and the timelines
laid down in the letter dated 01.09.2020 of 2nd respondent
addressed to 1st respondent already elapsed. This latter part of
the direction has aggrieved the respondent Corporation to
prefer this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that once the
proceedings for cancellation of the subject project were
withdrawn by appellant No.1, the learned writ Court ought not
to have issued any specific direction to the appellants and
respondent No.2 to consider the request of the bank for
initiation of appropriate steps for implementation of the
subject project, moreover when the timelines earlier fixed are
elapsed.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants and also the bank. We are of the
view that the impugned directions are innocuous in nature.
Since the decision to cancel the subject project has been
withdrawn, the learned writ Court after considering the request
of the learned counsel for the bank, felt it proper to issue a
4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
direction upon the appellants and respondent No.2 to consider
the request of the bank for initiation of appropriate steps
forthwith for implementation of the said project since the
earlier timeline had elapsed. The apprehension of the
appellants that by the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, the
learned writ Court directed the appellants and respondent No.2
to act one way is misplaced. As such, the appellant
Corporation is supposed to take a decision on the
representation of the bank on the pending subject project in
accordance with law.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
_____________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
4th AUGUST, 2025.
kvni
