The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Speaking Orders in Ref.RG.l/F'ER/C/54l6588 and Ref.RG,l/PER/Cl 541 6589, dated 0911212024 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CCI LTD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITIO NNo .259 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of India, is hled sceking the foltowing relief ".. . to rssue an appropiote Wit, Ord.er or DirectiQn more pafticularlg one in tlrc noture of Wit of Certiorai yi, ii. ,."ora, p^e11i:ulg to the Speaking orders ua" pii"..ing, ,n Ref.RG.I/ PER/ C/ s4/ 6sBB and Ref.RG.r/ pER/ s+tZSAS,- ;ot.a Os_ "na quo"i 1i" -ra^. 1-2-2024 issued bg the 2"d respon,lent "t dectannq igii"ritL innciples ittegot, orbitrctry, uoii ab_initio of tLatu al .ius-ti-ce ond consecluentlg direct the ,"Jpo,ii.rl-i io ,"L.or" en emoutLt o/Rs.55.59 Lakhs towards transport L q n".lO.OO fokh" towqrds EMD & Securitg Deposit and Rs.lOO-69 L<tkhs S% retained amount from the running biUs of-the contract to tte pitiiiine, atong Luith the [iterest from the date of closing/ e*piry o1 tiri "iTiract ancl poss. .. " ""a "all _as 2 The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner is a Contractor with vast experience in the Transport business. In response of the Tender Enquiry Notice issued by the rcspondent Company dated 02.01.2015,.he had submitted his offer and a,fter condtrcting due negotiations, he was duly awarded the Transport Conrract vide Work Order No.76000O5755 dated 02.O1.2015, for transportation of coal from Medipalli Opencast proj ect to different CI{Ps, on r,r,eight basis lor a period of two years, and thus, thc contract period is valid up to 01.01.2017. Thereafter, art agreement was entered between him and the respondent Company dated 06.O1.2015. pursuant 2 PK, J W.P.No.259 of 2025 ! to the same, the petitioner had commenced the tran tport work as per the understanding arrived at the time of negotiations and successfury executed the transport work awarded to him. In c:ompliance of the terms of the Work Order dated 02.01.2015, the petitioner had completed the transportation work without arry remarks.

2.2. While so, respondent No.3 issued p;oceedings dated 03.05.2016, for recovery of arl amount of Rs.S5,5(1,000/- from his pendiog bills on the ailegation that the coal loaded lorries were. diverted to destination other than GDK- l, CHp. The respondent Company also lodged a complaint, against the lorry owner, lorry driver and others, who alleged to have diverted the coal and forged the registers, before the Anthergaon Police Station vide Crime No.59 of 2016, registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 42O, 406, 4Og, 4t,8 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The police conducted investig:Ltion and filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.55 of 2017 on the hle of the .Iunior First Class Magistrate, Godavarikhani. The failure of the respondents to adduce the evidence before the tria-l Court resulted in acquittal of the accused therein, vide judgment dated 31.08.20 18.

2.3 It is the further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the recovery proceedings dated 03.05.2016, the petitioner hled W.P.No. 1664O of 2016 before this Court, and during the pendency of the T I 3 PK, J W.P.No.259 of 2025 said writ petition, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated OAl14.O2.2OI9, whcreby, the petitioner was directed to remit an arnount of Rs.81 ,35,837 I - and Rs.20,00,00O/ towards penalty, equivalent to twice the of security deposit, apart from that, the petitioner was also blacklisted from participating in the respondent Company's tenders for a period of two years.

2.4. Aggrieved by this proceedings, the petitioner also hled W.P.No.4444 of 2019 before this Court. Eventually, both the writ petitions were heard [ogether, and this Court, vide sepa-rate orders dated OI.O7.2024, set aside the aforesaid orders dated 03.O5.2O16 and 08 I 14.O2.2O19, on the ground that the said orders were issued in utter violation of principles o[ natural justicc, as the petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing, arld remitted the matter back to lhe respondents, directing them to re-consider the subject issue objectively and uninfluenced by their earlier decisions dated 03.O5.2016 and OBl14.O2.2079, re-examinc the whole issue afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance u'ith law. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation to the respondents, seeking to comply with the aforesaid ordcrs of this Court, and in pursuance thereof, the respondent Company scnt a letter dated 12.09.2024, calling lor appearance on 17 -O9.2O24. However, only after hling Contempt Cases vide C.C.Nos.2396 of 2024 4 PK, .1 W.P.No 259 oJ 2025 -.1 alrd 2397 of 2024, the respondents have passed Lhe present impugned order dated 09.12.2024, stating that the request o[ rtre petitioner for release of the forfeited amount does not mcrit consicrc.r tion. I{encc. the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Pulimamidi Shashidar Rcddl,, Iearnc( counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standi.q Counsel for thc respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the pctitioner submitted thill the alegation of the respondents is that during the execution of thc contract, it was established by thc vigilance enquiry that thc petitioncr had diverted 72 trips of coal to unknown destination. However, no rer:r rd is available to show that when the enquiry was conducted and undcr- what basis, the enquiry was concluded. Nothing is elicited from tht. speaking order except an erroneous conclusion thaL 72 lrucks .*,err: diverted to an unknown destination. In fact, with regard to the allcgr.tion of diversion of 72 trips of coal loads lorries, the Company had loc ged a complaint and the police registered an FIR vide Crimc No.59 <.tl 2016 for the offenses punishable under Sections 42O, 406. 4Og, +6n, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and after conducting an investigatio t, they have hled a charge sheet in C.C.No.SS of 2Ol7 on the iilc of rhe Judicial First Class Magistrate, Godavarikhani, which endcd rn rcqurttal of the - 5 PK, J w.P.No.259 of 2025 accused therein, as the respondent Company failed to adduce evidence' Therefore, the conclusion of thc respondents about diversion of 72 trips is not having legal scrutiny and u'ithout evidence on record' It was lurther submittecl that the petitioner has submitted bills 5. along with relevant documents, which clearly goes to show that he had transported excess in weighment and thcre is no liability on the part of the petitioner. Further, thc respondents failed to appreciate the proceedings of the Chief General Manager' RG-1 Area' dated 04.O5.2017 , wherein, it was decided that as per lhe recommendation of theCommitteeonallowab[evariationinweighmentbetweenthe dispatch point and the receiving end, weighment of coal admittance tippers bases on lead disrance Bascd on the said recommendations' the quantity of coal to be recovered from the petitioner is 4O0 Kgs per trip as allowable variation in n'eighment Therefore' the allowable variation.is 5a6.47+ Kgs, for the dilferencc quantity of coal for 930 trips with more than 4OO Kgs. After deducting 372 Kgs towards +/1 400 Kgs variation per trip, net quantity of coal to be recovered is ooly 214'474 Kgs, and the amount would come to Rs 8,28'648 60 @ Rs'3'900/- per ton. As such, the respondents ought to have proposed to recover from the petitioner only an amount of Rs 8'28'648'60' However' the respondents arrived at a conclusion, without any basis' evidence on \+ -l' 1 1 I ..1 6 PK, J 1 /.P No 259 of 2025 record and without considering any of the submissio ls made by the petitioner. Thus,the action of respondent No-2 rrr rejccting thc application of thc petitioner, without following Line awli. oLteram partem principle is in uttcr violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to p.tss appropriate orders in the present writ petitton by setting aside th(, impugned order dated 09.12.2024. Reliance has been placed on thc decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Kumq.r qnd others u. Union of Indial.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counscl for thc respondcnts vehemently contcnded that the writ petition is not m:r nLain:rble and is liable to be dismissed in limine, especially as the disprr Lc ariscs out of a contract, and specially as per Clause- 10 of,the terms , Lnd conditions ol work order, in case of disputes, the parties havc to lrpproach the Civil Court at Khammam and Karimnagar. Howevcr-, rvithout first approaching the Civil Court, the petitioner has hled the present writ petition, and therefore, the same is liable lo be dismissr cl. lt rvas further submitted that thc petitioner was awardcd tl'c contract lor transportation of coa.l from Medipally Open Cast Projer t (MOCP) to Coal Handling Plants (CHPs) of respondent company, on rr cight basis for a period of two years, vide purchase order No.,'6OOOO55 dated t l20ot) 2 scc 386 ) a V 7 PK, J W.P.No.259 of 2025 O2.OI.2Ol5, and an agreement dated 06.01.2015 was also executed, to the effect that the petitioner would perform all the works allotted to him in accordance with the specification. However, during the period of execution of the above contract work, on 30.03.20I6, in third shift, after taking the load o[ coal at the MOCP, the lorry bearing registration No.Ap 15 TB 9099 was sent to GDK-I CHp ar abour 01:50 AM, but did not report enroute at the check post/GDK i CHp. Thereafter, a Departmental Vigilance Enquiry was conducted and it was established that the coal loaded in 72 trips, i.e., 1426.820 MTN, was not unloaded at the CHP and might have been diverted to an unknown destination. The value of pilferage of coa.l in the verified threc months, i.e., January 2016 to March 2O16, came about Rs.55,59,318/-. As such, it was clear that the petitioner had violated the contractual obligations as stipulated at penalties Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 ol thc Work Order dated 02.01.2015.

7. [t was further submitted that the petitioner was categorically informed vide letter No.RGl/MOC /G-rclCf /1289 dated 03.05.2016, about thc entire issue and proposed for recovery lrom the running bills. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation on 11.05.2016 to the Chief General Manager, RG-l Area, requesting to stop recovery temporarily from the running bills on the plea that certain amounts of the petitioner, i.e., Future Security Deposit (FSD), Sccurity Deposit (SD) --] 8 PK, J W'.P.No.25<) o[ 2O25 ! and EMD are available with the respondents. However, the said rcqucst of lhe petitioner is contrary to Clauses 4 3 and 4 ' 1 o[ Lerms and conditions of work order, which stipulate that thc Cr,ntractor n'ill bc heldresponsibleforanyshortageofcoalandtheCostllsuchcoalu,ill be rccovercd from thc contractor's bills at the markct prices prevzriling attherelevanttime.Further,thepetitionerwasalsoissuedthreemore procccdingsdatecl03.05.2016,15.062016and29062l16statingthat during the ugilance enquiry, it was noticed that 2086' l1tonncs ol coal waslcsstransportedanditsvalueisRs'81,35,837/ivhichrvillbe recovcred from the running bills; that Rs'55,59,000,' is recoverable towards the cost of 72 coal loaded lorries that \\'crc divt:rtt:rl to destination other than GDK- 1 CHP, as per the depaftmenlal vigilancc enquiry; that in addition to recovery of Rs Sri'59'OOO/ tht: transportation charges will also be recovered from thc 1:,etitioncr. [t was further submitted that clause 4.3 stipulates that the companS' has everyrighttoforfeitthesecurityDepositandalso]lasthcrightto impose further penalties equivalent to twice the amount of Sccurity Deposit, apart from blacklisting the contractor. It wa s submittcd that in consideration of the representation of the petitioncr-, the amount of Rs.56,16,39g.57 was recovcred in three installments, irLstead o[ a single recovery towards the cost of coal lost and the transptlrtation charges. 9 PK, J W.P.No.259 of 2025 Further, the petitioner had nowhere condemned the diversion of lorries to other than specirred destinations. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he was not informed about the recovery of an amount of Ks.5r.59,OO0/ is false and bascless. 8- It was further submitted that c.c.No.S' 0f 2017 0n the fire of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Godavarikhani, u,as disposed of vide judgmcnt dated 31.08.201g, for want of evidence only, and thus, the mere acquittal of A1 to A7 does not come in the way of the respondents for taking necessary action against the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of purchase order, for ,legar transportation of 72 trips of coal loaded lorries from MOCp to unknown places, during his contract period from January 2016 to March 2016. It was further submitted that the petitioner filed W.p.No. I 6640 of 2O l6 challenging proccedings dated 03.05.2016, where.in, it was proposed to recover an amount of Rs.55,59,0O/- and also filed W.p.No.4444 of 2O1g before this Court, challenging the proceedings dated a/74.o2.2org, wherein, he was advised to remit the an amount of Rs.gl,35, g3Z /_ and Rs.20,0O,O00/_ towards penalty equivalent twice to the amount of security Deposit a'd proposed to blacklist the company for a period of two years. tsoth these writ petitions were alrowed setting aside the impugned orders therein, directing the respondents to re_examine the whole issue against in -/ -"/ I 1 .l 10 PK,,] W P.No.259 ct 2O2S conlormity with the principles of natural justice. lt was [urthcr submitted that as per the order of this Court dated 01 .O7.2024, vide letter No.RG1 /GMO/G-4/g24 dated, 72.Og.2024, the peLitioner r.r.,as informed to appear in the ofhce of the General Manage r, RG_ 1 area, on 17 -O9.2O24 at 04:00 pM, to examine the representati,rn in respect of release of bill amounts, FSD, SD and EMD. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 20.Og.2024, requcsting to release the pending bill amount against the work order. Later, a Committee is constituted to examine the representation submitted b.7 the petitioner, ard once again, vide le tter dated Oa.17.2024, the petitioner was advised to appear before the Committee on 08.11.2024 at 04:00 pM. As such, it is clear that he was provided an opportunity to appeilr and to shou., cause as to why action according to the terms and conditions cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner appezLred before the Committee on O8. 1 1.2024 and expressed his views for release of bills. On considering thc sarne, the present impugned order dated Og.1.2.2024 was issued. It was further submitted that as per Clause 1O of the Work order/ agreement, the petitroner has to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction in case of any disputes. However, without approaching the Civil Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ ,' \ \ 11 PK, J w.P.No.259 ol2025 petition, which is not maintainable. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the prescnt writ petition. g. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal ol the rccord, this Court is of the considered view that the main dispute be[ween the parties pertains to a serious allegation of breach of contract, i.e., diversion of coal loaded lorries to unknown dcstination other than GDK- 1 Coal Handling Plant; calculation o[ lost/under delivcrcd quantity of coal arrd its value; and release of outstanding amounts to the petitioner. These issues involve seriously disputed questions of fact that need to be adjudicated by adducing and evaluating the evidence, which cartnot be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Courts are the appropriate forum for rcsolution of disputes of this nature. Further, it is relevart to note that as per Clause lo(d) of the Work Order dated 02.01.2015, executed between the petitioner and the respondent company' the disputes arising out of the contract shall be resolved through the competent Civil Cou rt at Khammam District.

10. In view of availability of an alternative remedy, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner lo approach the competent Civit Court for redressal of his grievance, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a pcriod of four 1,2 PK, ,] W.P.No.259 of 2025 I (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this r.rder, and the Civil Court shall adjudicate thc matter on its own merits. 11 Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. Miscellancous applications, if any, pending in this u,rit petition, shall stand closcd. No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/.P ASSTS PONNA KRISHNA T REGISTRAR TION OFFICER The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The General Manager, F and A Department, Ramagundarn Area-1, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani, Peddapally (l'(arimnagar) District The Project Officer, Medipalli Opencast, Singarerli Colors Company Limited, Godavarikhani, Peddapally (Karimnagar) District. One CC to SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES co LTD [OPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 2 1 4 q @u PSK- HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 I ORDER WP.No.259 of 2025 1 ltE S [4, tre Y 2 E JUN 2025 :, q o 9 './, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS 4 t