[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Maha Hotel Projects Pvt Ltd vs State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
*THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
+ WRIT APPEAL No.27 of 2026
%09.04.2026
Between
# Maha Hotel Projects Private Limited
...Appellant
vs.
$ State of Telangana and 6 others
...Respondents
!Counsel for the appellant :Sri Suraj Prakash, learned Counsel
representing Ms.Vanaparthi Vaishali
^Counsel for respondents : Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned
Advocate General for the State of
Telangana duly assisted by
Sri I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned Special
Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and 5.
Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned
Senior Counsel and Sri Gyanendra
Kumar Seni, learned counsel
representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.4.
Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India appearing for
respondent No.7
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2018) 1 SCC 407
2. (2021) 13 SCR 737
3. AIR 1955 SC 74
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.27 of 2026
DATE:09.04.2026
Between:
Maha Hotel Projects Private Limited
....Appellant
And
State of Telangana and 6 others
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Suraj Prakash, learned counsel representing
Ms.Vanaparthi Vaishali, learned counsel for the appellant;
Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State of
Telangana duly assisted by Sri I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned Special
Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5;
Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel and
Sri Gyanendra Kumar Seni, learned counsel appearing through video
conference for Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4
and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing for respondent No.7, and perused the record.
2. This Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, is directed against the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30461 of 2025, whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed with costs of
Rs.10,00,000/-. The writ petition was instituted challenging the
decision of the Empowered Committee (Tourism) of the State of
Telangana taken in its meeting dated 22.09.2025, whereunder a No
Objection Certificate (NOC) was granted in favour of the 4th
respondent, being the successful resolution applicant under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'the IBC') for change
in shareholding and control of the project company, M/s. Golden
Jubilee Hotels Private Limited, subject to certain terms and
conditions, to facilitate implementation of the approved resolution
plan.
Factual matrix (in brief)
3. The lis giving rise to the present proceedings has a long and
chequered history spanning over two decades. The State of Andhra
Pradesh (now the State of Telangana), through its Youth
Advancement, Tourism & Culture Department (YATC), conceived a
project for the development of a Five-Star Hotel at Madhapur,
Hyderabad, on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. In furtherance
thereof, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in the year 2005
inviting bids from eligible entities for developing, financing,
constructing, operating, and maintaining the project.
4. Pursuant to the said process, a consortium comprising the
appellant's predecessor, namely My Home Group (Lead Developer),
VBC Group (Financial Member), and EIH Ltd. (Technical Member),
was declared the successful bidder, and in terms of the RFP
conditions. A Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), viz., M/s. Golden Jubilee
Hotels Private Limited (GJHPL), was incorporated as the project
company for implementation of the project.
5. Thereafter, Lease Agreements and a Development and
Management Agreement (DMA), both dated 09.05.2007, were executed
between the State and GJHPL for a tenure of 33 years, governing the
rights and obligations of the parties in respect of the project. The
consortium structure, with the appellant as the Lead Developer
holding a substantial and controlling equity stake (with approximately
84% shareholding being held by the lead and financial members and
the remaining 16% by EIH Ltd., the technical member), formed the
foundational basis of the project. The project was conceived as a two-
tower development, and upon completion of construction of the first
tower, commercial operations of the 'Trident Hotel, Hyderabad'
commenced in September, 2013, with the second tower being
substantially completed thereafter.
6. Subsequently, disputes arose inter se the consortium
members, on account of alleged financial mismanagement and
diversion of revenues by the technical member, EIH Ltd., which,
according to the appellant, resulted in severe financial distress to
GJHPL. It is alleged that such actions led to the erosion of the
financial position of the project company, culminating in its loan
account being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the
lending consortium of banks led by Bank of Baroda. Consequently,
Bank of Baroda initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC
before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench,
and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against
GJHPL was admitted by order dated 27.02.2018.
7. In the course of the CIRP, the 4th respondent, being the
successful resolution applicant, submitted a resolution plan offering,
inter alia, financial settlement to the creditors, which came to be
approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a voting share of
68.26%, and was thereafter approved by the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench,
vide order dated 07.02.2020. A material and express condition of the
said resolution plan was that its implementation was contingent upon
obtaining prior written consent of the State Government, including
respondent Nos.1 and 5 (YATC and Shilparamam Society), for
effecting a change in shareholding and control of GJHPL, which was
stipulated as a condition precedent to the plan coming into force.
8. The appellant, aggrieved by the prospect of such change in
control, instituted W.P.No.17129 of 2020 before this Court seeking to
restrain the State from granting such consent, placing reliance on the
provisions of the Telangana Infrastructure Development Enabling
(TIDE) Act, 2001. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by
order dated 28.04.2023 and W.A.No.1135 of 2023 preferred
thereagainst was also dismissed. The Special Leave Petition (C)
No.22186 of 2024 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was likewise
dismissed, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the provisions of the
IBC, 2016 would prevail over the TIDE Act to the extent of any
inconsistency.
9. Owing to delays in obtaining the requisite governmental
approvals, the 4th respondent initially sought to terminate the
resolution plan on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition
precedent; however, upon subsequent negotiations between the
stakeholders, including the State Government and the lenders, the
process was revived. Thereafter, the State Government, acting
through the Empowered Committee (Tourism), in its meeting dated
22.09.2025, accorded its conditional consent to the implementation of
the resolution plan. The said consent was subject to several terms
and conditions, which are extracted hereunder:
1) Lease with the M/s. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ) Pte., Ltd..
(M/s. Blackstone) will be valid fill the balance period of the earlier lease
agreement upto the year 2041 only, without any extension.
2) The company will make upfront payment of Rs. 88.23 crores within
15 days from the date of agreement, which is principal amount due from
the previous agency ie., M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels (P) Ltd.. (GJHPL) to
TGTDC.
3) On 07-04-2019, sole arbitrator has pronounced award in favour of
developer M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels (P) Ltd., (GJHPL) against which
COP 39/2020 is filed by YAT&C Department. The M/s. Golden Jubilee
Hotels (P) Ltd., (GJHPL) has claimed an amount of Rs. 42.50crores
including interest in this case. M/s. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co.
(NQ) Pte., Ltd.. (M/s. Blackstone) shall agree to forego this claim against
Government of Telangana and TGTDC.
4) The Lease Rental to the TGTDC will be calculated at the rate of Rs.
7,500/- per sq. yrds from the date of agreement ie, May 2007.
5) M/S. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ) Pte., Ltd., (M/s.
Blackstone) will take steps to complete tower 2 and make it operational
in 24 months from the date of the agreement.
6) Tripartite agreement will be entered between TGTDC. M/s. BREP
Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ) Pte., Ltd., (M/s. Blackstone) and current
operator ie., East India Hotels (EIH) to continue to operate tower I and
tower 2, till the end of lease period. Separate agreement can be worked
out between M/s. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ) Pte., Ltd., (M/s.
Blackstone) and EIH regarding the operations part.
7) All court cases in which M/s. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ)
Pte., Ltd., (M/s. Blackstone) has a claim against Government of
Telangana and TGTDC, shall be withdrawn. Likewise, court cases
pertaining to matters settled in this agreement will be withdrawn by the
Government of Telangana.
8) Post NCLT judgement, the escrow account, where surplus funds are
deposited by the operator has accumulated Rs. 240 crores as on August
2025. TGTDC will file claims before the NCLT for its unsettled dues ie.,
Rs. 69.83 crores which is the Interest on the pending Lease Rental &
Annual Development Premium (ADP).
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Empowered
Committee granting consent to the 4th respondent and permitting
change in control of the project company, the appellant instituted the
underlying W.P.No.30461 of 2025 challenging the same as being
arbitrary, illegal, and violative of its Constitutional and contractual
rights, including on the ground that its accrued rights as Lead
Developer could not be divested without due process of law and
without compensation. The said writ petition, came to be dismissed
by the learned Single Judge by order dated 20.11.2025, with costs,
thereby giving rise to the present writ appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
11. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order
and has advanced submissions as under:
i) That the action of the State in effectively divesting and
extinguishing the appellant's accrued proprietary and
contractual rights as the Lead Developer of the consortium is
ex facie arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, being in
violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
That such deprivation has been effected without issuance of any
notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without
payment of any compensation, and further in complete
disregard of the termination procedure expressly stipulated
under the Lease Deed and the DMA dated 09.05.2007, which
continue to subsist and have not been terminated in
accordance with law.
ii) That the consent granted by the State Government vide decision
dated 22.09.2025 introduces substantive conditions which are
alien to, and inconsistent with, the resolution plan approved by
the NCLT. In particular, it was pointed out that the imposition
of revised lease rental at Rs.7,500/- per Sq.yd. with
retrospective effect, the requirement of foreclosure/waiver of
arbitral claims, and most significantly, the stipulation for
continuation of M/s.EIH Ltd. as the operator of the hotel under
a tripartite arrangement, are not contemplated under the
approved resolution plan, and thus amount to an impermissible
modification thereof, which is legally untenable in view of the
binding nature of a resolution plan under the IBC.
iii) That the impugned action suffers from manifest arbitrariness
and hostile discrimination inasmuch as two similarly situated
members of the original consortium have been treated
unequally without any rational basis. While the appellant,
being the Lead Developer and majority stakeholder, has been
completely ousted and its rights extinguished, the technical
member, M/s.EIH Ltd., has been permitted not only to continue
but to operate the project, thereby conferring an unjustified and
preferential treatment.
iv) That the project in question constitutes valuable State largesse
and, therefore, any transfer or reallocation thereof is required to
be undertaken through a transparent, fair, and competitive
process consistent with constitutional principles. It was
contended that the State has, in the present case, bypassed the
established norms of public procurement and has effectively
awarded the project to the 4th respondent through private
negotiations arising out of insolvency proceedings, without any
public tender or competitive bidding, thereby violating settled
principles governing distribution of State largesse under Article
14 of the Constitution.
v) That the proposed transfer of 100% shareholding of GJHPL to
the 4th respondent, which is a foreign entity, would result in
100% Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in a fully developed and
operational hotel project, which is impermissible under the
extant Consolidated FDI Policy of India. Learned counsel
submitted that while FDI may be permissible in construction
and development of new hotel projects, the same is not
allowable in respect of already completed and operational
hospitality infrastructure, and therefore, the impugned decision
is contrary to national policy and public interest.
vi) That the learned Single Judge has also erred in dismissing the
writ petition on the ground of re-litigation. It was argued that
the cause of action in the present case arises specifically from
the decision of the Empowered Committee dated 22.09.2025,
which constitutes a fresh and independent cause of action and
had never been the subject matter of challenge in any prior
proceedings. Consequently, the finding of re-litigation is wholly
unsustainable in law. It was further contended that the
imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.10,00,000/- on the
appellant is arbitrary and unjustified, particularly in light of the
substantial legal and constitutional issues raised for
adjudication.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
12. Learned Advocate General for the State and learned Senior
counsel for respondent No.4 has supported the impugned order and
advanced their submissions as under:
i) That in view of Section 238 of the IBC, the IBC has an
overriding effect over all other laws for the time being in force
notwithstanding any inconsistency. The resolution plan, once
approved by the NCLT under Section 31 of the IBC, attains
binding force and is enforceable against all stakeholders,
including the State Government, the corporate debtor, and its
shareholders. The appellant, being merely a shareholder of the
corporate debtor, is bound by the approved resolution plan and
cannot seek to resist its implementation.
ii) That the project in question was awarded to the SPV, namely
GJHPL, which is a distinct juristic entity in law, separate from
its shareholders. The rights in respect of the project vest in the
corporate debtor and not in its shareholders individually. The
appellant's rights are limited to its status as a shareholder, and
upon commencement of the CIRP, such rights are subject to the
scheme of the IBC. It was further submitted that the consent
accorded by the State is not in the nature of a fresh grant of
contract or largesse, but is merely an enabling act to give effect
to the resolution plan approved.
iii) That the approved resolution plan itself expressly stipulated
obtaining the consent of the State Government for change in
shareholding and control of GJHPL as a condition precedent for
its implementation. Therefore, the decision of the Empowered
Committee dated 22.09.2025 is in complete conformity with the
terms of the resolution plan and constitutes a valid exercise of
contractual and statutory discretion by the State. It was further
submitted that the conditions imposed by the State, including
financial and operational stipulations, are in the nature of a
commercial settlement of pre-existing disputes and liabilities,
and fall squarely within the domain of 'commercial wisdom' of
the Committee of Creditors and the State, which is not
amenable to judicial review.
iv) That the approved resolution plan does not mandate any
specific operator, and the issue of operation of the hotel is left to
the commercial discretion of the successful resolution
applicant. The decision to retain M/s.EIH Ltd. as the operator is
based on operational and commercial considerations to ensure
continuity of the hotel as a going concern without disruption. It
was further contended that the position of the technical
member post-CIRP is not comparable to that of the Lead
Developer, whose rights stand subsumed and extinguished by
operation of law under the insolvency framework, and therefore,
no case of hostile discrimination under Article 14 is made out.
v) That the fundamental issue relating to the primacy of the IBC
and the authority of the State to act in furtherance of an
approved resolution plan has already been conclusively
adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation, including
W.P.No.17129 of 2020, W.A.No.1135 of 2023, and the SLP(C)
No.22186 of 2024. The present proceedings constitute a
disguised attempt to reopen and re-agitate issues which stand
settled.
vi) Insofar as the challenge based on the Consolidated FDI Policy is
concerned, it was submitted that the 4th respondent is bound to
comply with all applicable foreign investment laws and
regulations, and any alleged violation thereof falls within the
domain of the competent statutory authorities, including the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Central Government. It was
contended that the writ court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot adjudicate upon
such economic and policy matters in the abstract, particularly
in the absence of any demonstrable or patent illegality.
13. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and
perused the material on record.
Consideration by this Court
Issue of Overriding Effect of the IBC and the Binding Nature of
the Resolution Plan
14. It is pertinent to note that the issue of the overriding effect of
the IBC and the binding nature of an approved resolution plan forms
the fulcrum of the present dispute. The principal grievance of the
appellant is that the State has, in effect, transferred a public project
in favour of the 4th respondent without adhering either to a process of
public tender or to the procedure contemplated under the original
project agreements. On a careful examination, the allegation is found
to be untenable, as it fails to take note of the statutory scheme and
overriding effect of the IBC. The IBC is a comprehensive and special
legislation enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to
reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons in a
time-bound manner. Section 238 of the IBC contains a non-obstante
clause and reads as follows:
Section 238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws. - The
provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
15. The legal position with regard to the primacy of the IBC is no
longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Innoventive
Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Another 1, has held that the non-
obstante clause, in the widest terms possible, is contained in Section
238 of the IBC, so that any right of the Corporate Debtor under any
other law cannot come in the way of the IBC, Further, in
Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset
Reconstruction Company Limited 2, the Apex Court while
interpreting the issue of binding effect of resolution plan upon the
creditor, has held as under:
58. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would also make it
abundantly clear, that once the resolution plan is approved by the
Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as
approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in Sub-section
(2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its
employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders.
Such a provision is necessitated since one of the dominant purposes of
the I&B Code is, revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a
running concern.
(2018) 1 SCC 407
(2021) 13 SCR 737
16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the resolution plan
submitted by the 4th respondent came to be approved by the NCLT,
Hyderabad Bench, by order dated 07.02.2020. The said plan, by its
very terms, contemplated the transfer of entire shareholding and
control of the corporate debtor, namely GJHPL, which is the project
company holding the leasehold rights in respect of the subject
property. It is also an admitted fact that the implementation of the
resolution plan was made conditional upon obtaining the consent of
the State Government for such change in shareholding and control.
17. Viewed thus, the contention of the appellant that the State has
awarded a "fresh project" to the 4th respondent dehors a public tender
process is liable to be rejected. The State, in granting its consent vide
decision dated 22.09.2025, was not exercising its power to distribute
State largesse, but was acting as a stakeholder bound by the
statutory framework of the IBC and in compliance with the terms of
the approved resolution plan. As is evident from the record, the
consent accorded by the Empowered Committee was in furtherance of
the resolution process and subject to certain conditions governing
financial dues, lease rentals, and operational continuity.
18. It is to be noted that the appellant's contention that the project
was awarded to the consortium as distinct from the SPV is untenable
and does not merit any practical or legal consequence. The
contractual and legal structure, as borne out from the record, clearly
demonstrates that the project was implemented through the SPV,
GJHPL, which alone entered into the Lease Deed and the DMA with
the State. Therefore, the rights of the consortium members, including
the appellant, were mediated exclusively through their shareholding
in the said corporate entity. In this context, the well-settled principle
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay 3, that a company is a
distinct juristic person separate from its shareholders, assumes
significance. The appellant, being merely a shareholder of the
corporate debtor, cannot assert an independent or superior right in
respect of the project, dehors the corporate entity.
19. Further, once the corporate debtor underwent insolvency
resolution and its ownership and control stood transferred in
accordance with the approved resolution plan, the rights in relation to
the project necessarily followed such change, and no independent or
surviving claim in respect thereof can be asserted by the erstwhile
shareholders dehors the corporate debtor. Thus, the role of the State,
cannot be equated with that of a sovereign authority making a fresh
grant, but must be understood as that of a contracting party acting in
furtherance of a binding statutory resolution process.
Issue regarding the plea of violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India
20. The appellant's submission that its alleged "accrued proprietary
rights" have been taken away without payment of compensation,
AIR 1955 SC 74
thereby violating Article 300A of the Constitution of India is
erroneous. The appellant did not possess any independent or direct
right in respect of the leasehold property or the project in question. Its
rights, if any, were derivative in nature and flowed solely from its
shareholding in the corporate debtor, namely GJHPL.
21. It is relevant to note that the extinguishment or dilution of the
appellant's interest is a direct consequence of the insolvency of the
corporate debtor and the implementation of the approved resolution
plan. It cannot be construed as a deprivation of property dehors the
authority of law. The appellant, being a shareholder of a company that
has undergone insolvency resolution, cannot claim a vested or
indefeasible right to continue in control of the corporate debtor or its
assets. The loss occasioned to the appellant is in the nature of a
commercial consequence of insolvency proceedings and not a
compulsory acquisition by the State so as to attract a requirement of
compensation under Article 300A.
22. It is well settled that upon commencement and culmination of
the CIRP under the IBC, the assets of the corporate debtor, including
its contractual and leasehold rights, would be dealt with in
accordance with an approved resolution plan, which is binding on all
stakeholders by virtue of Section 31 read with Section 238 of the IBC.
Thus, the resolution process constitutes a "procedure established by
law" within the meaning of Article 300A, even if it were to be assumed
that the appellant was to be treated as having any right.
23. Further, the contention that the State was under a legal
obligation to compensate the appellant is also misconceived. The
appellant, having suffered the consequences arising out of the
insolvency of the SPV, cannot assert any surviving proprietary claim
so as to impede the implementation of a resolution plan approved in
accordance with law.
Issue of the alleged modification of the Resolution Plan and
Violation of Article 14
24. The Appellant has contended that the conditional consent
accorded by the State, particularly insofar as it contemplates the
continuation of M/s. EIH Ltd. as the operator of the hotel, amounts to
an impermissible modification of the resolution plan approved by the
Adjudicating Authority. This contention, in the considered view of this
Court, proceeds on an incorrect understanding of the terms of the
approved resolution plan.
25. On perusal of the resolution plan, it is evident that the plan
does not indicate any stipulation mandating the removal of the
existing operator. On the contrary, the plan leaves the issue of
operation and management to the commercial discretion of the
successful resolution applicant. The option to continue or replace the
operator is embedded within the framework of the plan itself. In such
case, the decision of the 4th respondent to retain M/s. EIH Ltd. as the
operator, as part of a transitional or continuing arrangement, cannot
be construed as a modification of the resolution plan, but is rather a
manifestation of commercial prudence aimed at ensuring continuity of
the corporate debtor as a going concern.
26. Insofar as the allegation of discrimination under Article 14 is
concerned, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the
appellant and M/s. EIH Ltd. are similarly situated entities. The
appellant, being the Lead Developer and majority shareholder,
exercised control over the affairs of the corporate debtor, and its
position stood extinguished as a consequence of the CIRP. M/s. EIH
Ltd., on the other hand, was a minority shareholder and functioned
primarily as a technical and operational service provider under a
distinct contractual arrangement. Post-CIRP, its role is confined to
that of an operator, without any controlling interest in the
management or financial affairs of the corporate debtor. In such
circumstances, the differential treatment, if any, is founded on
intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved, namely, ensuring continuity and efficient operation of the
project.
Issue of Public Procurement, FDI Policy, and the Scope of
Judicial Review
27. The contention of the appellant that the project ought to have
been subjected to a fresh process of public tender cannot be accepted,
as the same is fundamentally inconsistent with the statutory scheme
of the IBC. The object of the IBC is to ensure resolution of the
corporate debtor as a going concern in a time-bound manner and to
maximise the value of its assets. Any insistence on re-tendering a
project which forms an integral part of the assets of the corporate
debtor would not only disrupt the resolution process but also defeat
the very purpose of the IBC.
28. It is to be noted that the selection of the 4th respondent as the
successful resolution applicant was not the result of any extraneous
or opaque private negotiation, but was undertaken through a
structured and competitive process within the framework of the CIRP,
under the supervision of the CoC and subject to the approval of the
Adjudicating Authority. Such a process, being statutorily recognised,
stands on a distinct footing and cannot be equated with a grant of
State largesse requiring adherence to the conventional norms of
public tender.
29. Insofar as the allegation regarding violation of the Consolidated
FDI Policy is concerned, the same does not warrant interference in the
exercise of writ jurisdiction. The regulatory framework governing FDI
is administered by specialised authorities, including the RBI and the
competent departments of the Central Government. Whether the
transaction in question conforms to the applicable FDI norms is a
matter to be examined by such authorities in accordance with law
and on the basis of the factual matrix presented before them. Further,
in the absence of any manifest or ex facie illegality demonstrated, this
Court would be slow to undertake an adjudication on such issues,
which lie within the domain of economic and regulatory policy. The
learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in declining to entertain
the said contention and in leaving it open to be considered by the
competent authorities, if and when the occasion so arises.
Issue of Re-litigation and the Imposition of Costs
30. This Court is constrained to note that the appellant has, at
multiple stages, sought to challenge the CIRP and its consequential
outcomes, including proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority,
the Appellate Tribunal, this Court in W.A.No.1135 of 2023 in
W.P.No.17129 of 2020, and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP(C) No.22186 of 2024. The present proceedings arise from
a challenge to the decision dated 22.09.2025 of the Empowered
Committee, which is in furtherance of, and flows directly from, the
implementation of the resolution plan approved under the IBC.
31. The fundamental question as to whether the State is competent
to grant its consent for change in shareholding of GJHPL
notwithstanding the provisions of the TIDE Act, stands concluded
against the appellant in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.17129 of
2020, which has attained finality upon affirmation up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The subsequent decision dated 22.09.2025 does not
give rise to an independent or fresh cause of action, but is merely a
consequential step in furtherance of the approved resolution plan.
Permitting the appellant to re-agitate the very same issues under the
guise of a subsequent development would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
32. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, cannot be faulted for
dismissing the writ petition. Insofar as the imposition of costs of
Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, the same appears to have been awarded
having regard to the nature of the litigation and the repeated
challenges mounted by the appellant. This Court does not find any
sufficient ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the
learned Single Judge in this regard.
Conclusion
33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
that the writ appeal is devoid of merit and the decision of the
Empowered Committee of the State Government dated 22.09.2025 is
upheld, as it does not suffer from any Constitutional or legal infirmity
warranting interference by this Court.
34. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of
merit. The impugned order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.30461 of 2025 is hereby affirmed. The
appellant shall, if not already complied with, deposit a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards costs with the
Telangana State Legal Services Authority, as directed by the learned
Single Judge, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of this
judgment.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed. No costs.
_______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN,J
Date:09.04.2026
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.
SZT
