Telangana High Court

M/S Ece Industries Limited vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 11 February, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

            WRIT PETITION No.3779 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Ravi, learned senior designated

counsel representing Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record

and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior designated

counsel representing Sri P.V.S.Prasad, learned standing

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 &

2 on record and Assistant Government Pleader for

Industries appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

".......to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Lr.No. CGM/P and MM/NPDCL/WGL/GM/DE-2/A3/ D.No. 610/25 Dt 30/01/2025 and Lr.No.CGM/P and MM/NPDCL/WGI /GM/DE-2/A3/D.No.4980 Dt 17.12.2024 and unilaterally disqualifying the petitioner which act if permitted tantamount to blacklisting the petitioner as illegal arbitrary without any authority contrary to the provisions of the

SN, J

purchase orders and the conditions of the tender specifications setting aside the same consequently declaring the same as contrary to the provisions of law violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of Principles of Natural Justice in utter violation of law laid down by apex court in M/S. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd Vs Union of India and others (1975) 1 SCC 70 and pass...."

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd

respondent issued the impugned proceedings Lr.No. CGM/P &

MM/NPDCL/WGL/GM/DE-2/A3/D.No. 610/25, dated

30/01/2025 and Lr.No.CGM/P and MM/NPDCL/WGI /GM/DE-

2/A3/D.No.4980, dated 17.12.2024 to the petitioner and

unilaterally disqualified the petitioner which act if permitted

tantamounts to blacklisting the petitioner as illegal arbitrary

without any authority, contrary to the provisions of the

purchase orders and the conditions of the tender

specifications and aggrieved by the said action of the

respondents, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

SN, J

4. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings,

Lr.No.CGM/P&MM/NPDCL/WGL/GM/DE-

2/A3/D.No.610/25 of the 2nd respondent, dated

30.01.2025 issued to the petitioner indicates that it is

a notice issued to the petitioner, informing the

petitioner to arrange the joint inspection of failed 5

MVA PTRs at petitioner's location/premises

immediately for further action in the matter.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings,

Lr.No.CGM/P&MM/NPDCL/WGL/GM/DE-

2/A3/D.No.4980 of the 2nd respondent, dated

17.12.2024 issued to petitioner in particular para No.12

also indicates that it is only the request made to the

petitioner to program to communicate and complete

the joint inspection of failed 5MVA PTRs at petitioner's

location/premises within one week of receipt of the

said notice, dated 17.12.2024.

6. A bare perusal of the Notice vide Lr.No.

CE/P&MM/NPDCL/WGL/GM/DE-2/A3/D.No.741/25,

dated 06.02.2025 of the 2nd respondent issued to the

SN, J

petitioner filed by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner along with Memo, dated

10.02.2025 also indicates that it is a show-cause notice

issued to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to

submit petitioner's consent for attending joint

inspection at any authorized repairing agency of

TGNPDCL or at petitioner's factory duly mentioning the

date within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said

notice, dated 06.02.2025.

7. This Court opines that in view of the fact that all

the three Notices, dated 30.01.2025, 17.12.2024,

06.02.2025 clearly indicate that they are only notices

issued to the petitioner pertaining to conducting of

joint inspection with TGNPDCL officials with regard to

rectification of 3 Nos. 33/11 KV 5.0 MVA Power

Transformers of ECE Make bearing Sl.No:H-2039/18

against purchase Order No. PM-5594/18, dated

20.06.2018, Sl.No:H-1469/16 against Purchase Order

No. PM-4727/15, dated 13.01.2016 and Sl.No.H-

1297/16 against Purchase Order No. PM-4541/15,

SN, J

dated 16.07.2015 and in fact admittedly as borne on

record no decision against the petitioner had been

taken as on date and hence, it cannot be said that the

action of the respondents herein in issuing the said

notices to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal.

8. This Court opines that notices impugned in the

present Writ Petition in fact uphold the principles of

natural justice by affording the petitioner a reasonable

opportunity to respond to the specific requests made by

the 2nd respondent to the petitioner through the said

three notices by ensuring that the rights of the

petitioner to whom it is issued stand protected and the

issuance of the said three (03) notices to the petitioner

by the 2nd respondent in fact reasonably indicate

fairness before any action is proposed to be taken

against the petitioner herein.

9. This Court on perusal of the record opines that it

is always open to the petitioner to submit petitioner's

objections in respect of the above said three notices to

SN, J

the respondent Nos.1 & 2 very clearly explaining the

infringement of the rights of the petitioner by the

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by virtue of issuance of the said

notices and the respondent Nos.1 & 2 would eventually

consider the same in accordance to law and take a

decision on the subject issue.

10. In Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana,

reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28: AIR 2007 SC 906, the

Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, held

as follows:

13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-

cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A

SN, J

mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.

11. In Ministry of Defence V. Prabhash Chandra

Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held as follows:-

SN, J

"Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court."

12. Taking into consideration:-