Telangana High Court
Grn Constructions Private Limited vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 19 April, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.10292 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.A.Venkatesh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.P.Harsha Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the following relief:
"To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in insisting the petitioner company to sign on the final settlement bill without providing the details that were sought under letter vide Ref:GRNCPL/KOC-YA/SCCL/YLD/24-25/192 dated 10.04.2024 including Vigilance Enquiry report from Vigilance Department, State of Telangana as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable unconstitutional and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide the material/information including Vigilance Enquiry report pertaining to the OBR Work Order No.7600006457 dated 09.06.2016."
2 SN,J WP_10292_2024
3. The petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.33077 of 2023 and the same was disposed vide its order dated 05.01.2024, in particular, at para 3 of the said order it is observed as under:
"3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a memo stating as under:
"after receipt of the Vigilance Enquiry Report from the Vigilance Department, State of Telangana, the bills of the petitioner are being processed. The Bills of the petitioner will be processed not later than three months, subject to the petitioner extending the Bank Guarantee for a further period of three moths from January, 2024."
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 05.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.33077 of 2023, the petitioner vide its representation dated 10.04.2024 addressed to the General Manager, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Koyagudem, OCP, Yellandu Area, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana, requested for providing final survey plan, final bill OB quantity and overall executed quantities including lead, details of diesel bonus and 3 SN,J WP_10292_2024 deductions as per NIT for the Work Order No.7600006457 dated 09.06.2016 at KOC-II Yellandu area and in particular requested to provide the following information immediately to proceed further:
a) Final Survey Quantities including operated lead,
b) Final Survey Plans,
c) Certified Final Quantities and operated lead,
d) Diesel Bonus Statement.
It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner also made a specific request for the concerned Vigilance Enquiry Report from Vigilance Department, State of Telangana, without providing the documents as requested by the petitioner vide petitioner's letter dated 10.04.2024, the respondents are proceeding with encashment of Bank Guarantee B.G.No.61/2020 dated 22.07.2020 & B.G.No.121/2016 dated 13.07.2016 and the General Manager of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited further vide letter dated 15.04.2024 had instructed the Chief Manager, Canara Bank for invocation of the subject bank guarantee. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. This Court on perusal of the record opines that to prevent irretrievable injustice injunction against enforcement of Bank 4 SN,J WP_10292_2024 Guarantee can be granted by this Court, and the circumstances of the present case warrant interference by this Court.
6. The Apex Court in a Judgment dated 13.09.1995 in "Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others" reported in (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 68, in particular, at para 9, observed as under:
"...The appellant wrote to the first respondent on 21- 2-1994 that the plant was completed and so all bank guarantees have served their contractual requirements. On a perusal of the relevant clauses in the contract, executed between the appellant and the first respondent, and the communication of the first respondent dated 10.06.1994, it is fairly clear that the stipulations or conditions mentioned as per clauses 70.2, 70.3 and 70.4 have been successfully fulfilled and the plant was admittedly taken over by the first respondent. The guarantee given by the Citibank, N.A. dated 10.05.1989 appearing in Vol.II at pp. 122 to 126 will ensure only till successful completion of the trial operations and the plant is taken over. That event having ensued, the invocation of the guarantee given by the Citibank dated 10.05.1985 in the sum of Rs.2.72 crores is not encashable on its terms and in order to prevent irretrievable injustice, an injunction as prayed for, to Respondents 1 to 4 deserves to be issued on that score. The Court below was in error in not doing so. We hereby restrain 5 SN,J WP_10292_2024 Respondents 1 and 4 from invoking the bank guarantee aforesaid."
7. Learned counsel Mr.E.Madan Mohan Rao, in turn placing reliance on the Judgment dated 13.10.2022 passed in W.A.No.651 of 2022 contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
8. Heard the rival submissions of both the learned counsel on record.
9. Perused the material on record.
10. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier Judgment of this Court dated 05.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.33077 of 2023 and the contents of the letter dated 15.04.2024 of the General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited addressed to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Somajiguda and also the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in "Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others" in (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 68 (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2024 and 6 SN,J WP_10292_2024 furnish the documents as requested by the petitioner in the said letter i.e., a) b) c) d) (referred to and extracted above) and also the concerned Vigilance Enquiry Report from Vigilance Department, State of Telangana as prayed for in the present writ petition, within two (02) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the petitioner is directed to extend bank guarantee till 30.06.2024.
Till the respondents consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2024, and also furnish the documents as requested in the said representation, and also the concerned Vigilance Enquiry Report, from the Vigilance Department, State of Telangana and the petitioner signs the final bill, the respondents are directed not to encash the subject bank guarantee. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would sign the final bill within one (01) week on receipt of the all the documents as requested by the petitioner from the respondents, and the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is also brought on record. The present order is passed upon consent of the both the 7 SN,J WP_10292_2024 learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 19.04.2024 Yvkr