Telangana High Court
Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Sand Quarry ... vs The State Of Telangana on 17 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.201 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri A. Ananthasen Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology Department, for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.2.
2. This Intra-Court appeal assails the order of learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.1722 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Government by communication dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure-P2) granted the contract for excavation of sand to respondent No.4. In turn, respondent No.4 granted the work to the present appellant. However, the term of said contract was over in June, 2024. The appellant preferred representations before respondent No.4 and the Government seeking extension of the contract. Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting its prayer for consideration of representations on the ground of locus standi. The appellant being a Tribal Society has a right to undertake the said work.
2
4. The other side opposed the prayer and submits that the basic contract was between the Government and respondent No.4. The appellant was not party to the contract. The period of contract is over and the appellant has no locus whatsoever to seek extension of the contract in which it was not a party.
5. We have heard the parties on admission.
6. We find substance in the objection taken by the other side. Learned Single Judge also opined that the appellant does not have the locus standi because it was only either an agent or a service provider and not the main contractor. At this stage, when contract period is already over, at the instance of the appellant, no mandamus can be issued for extension or renewal of contract. The admission is declined. However, this order will not come in the way of the appellant to prefer fresh application for grant of contract, if law so permits.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ ____________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 17.02.2025 Myk/Tsr