Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.K.M Powergen Pvt.Ltd., vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.7809 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
1. 28.03.2022 CPK, J & VS, J (Taken up as Lunch Motion) Notice.
Learned Assistant Solicitor General, takes notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 5 and 6. Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Standing Counsel for CBEC and ST, takes notice on behalf of respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent no.7 by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and to file proof of service. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
As seen from the record, the petitioner herein applied for financial assistance to Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFC) i.e. 6th respondent, on 22.10.2006, which was sanctioned on 02.08.2007. The application of the petitioner seeking mega power project policy was revised by the Government of India w.e.f. 14.12.2009. Pursuant to which, the condition of Inter-State sale of power for setting mega power status was removed and the condition that the mega power project would be required to tie up power supply to the distribution companies/utilities through long term PPAs, was included.
It is said that though the Unit has been commissioned within a period of ten (10) years as prescribed by the policy, but the petitioner could not fulfill the requirement of long term Power Project Agreement. As a result of which, the Assistant Commissioner has addressed a letter to the bank authorities, for revoking of bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 22.03.2022, would show that about 35 bank guarantees were executed by the petitioner from 2010 to 2017, which are sought to be revoked only on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfill their obligation though ten years period has been elapsed.
Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the Unit has been commissioned and the Power is being generated, the delay has occurred, as no State Government has come forward to enter into an agreement for long term Power Project Agreement.
Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Standing Counsel for respondents would submit that since an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 is available, the petitioner ought to have availed the said remedy.
In response, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would contend that availing of alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, would not meet the ends of justice. According to him, in the instant case, neither there is any show cause notice calling for explanation of the petitioner nor an order is passed and as such, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9830 of 2020 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to this case.
As the matter requires consideration at length, for which a counter is necessary, list on 25.04.2022, meanwhile, counter if any shall be filed.
Contd., Till such time, the respondent authorities shall not revoke the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner.
________________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Note:
Issue CC by 30.03.2022.
B/o. MS