M/s ECE lndustries Limited v. 1. The Chairman and Managing Director

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Lr.No.CGM/P and MM/NPDCLMGL/GM/DE-2iA3I D.No.6l Ol25 Dl. 30l1'l 12025 and Lr.No.CGM/P and MM/NPDCLMGI, IGMIDE-Z|A31D.No.4980 Dt. 17-12-2024 and unilaterally disqualifying the petitioner which act if permitted tantamount to blacklisting the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority contrary to the provisions of the purchase orders and the conditions of the tender specifications setting aside the same consequently declaring the same as contrary to the provisions of law, violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart from being in violation of Principles of Natural Justice in utter violation of law laid down by apex court in M/ s.Erusian Equipment and chemicars Ltd Vs Union of rndia and others (1e75) l SCC 70 lA NO: 1 oF 202s Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents revoke the d isq uarification of the petitioner acting upon the impugned proceedings / p&MM/ N'DCL/ WGL /GM/DE_2/A3/ D.No. 610/2S, Dt: 30-01.2025 ANd LT.NO,CGM/P&MM / NPDCL^,GIV GM/ DE-2 I A3I D.NO. 4980 Dt: 17-12-2024 lA NO:2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay impugned proceedings Lr' No.cGM/p&MM/NpDCLA/VGL/c M /DE-2,A3/D. No .61 o r25, Dt: eO_ot -iozs ano Lr.No.CGM/p&,MM/N'DCL MGL/GM I DE_2tAgtD.No.4980 Dt: 17_ 12_2024 further proceedings pursuant to Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. S. RAVI SENIOR COUNSEL REp SRI A. CHANDRA SHAKER Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI G. VIDYASAGAR SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI P.V.S PRASAD, SC FOR TGNPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR INDUSTRIES The Court made the following: ORDER I ,J HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RI E N o 77 F 2 ORDER Heard Sri S.Ravi, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner on record and Sri G,Vidya Sagar, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri p.V.S.prasad, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 on record and Assistant Government pleaaer tor Industries appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: *.......to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order declaring the action oF the second respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Lr.No. CGM/P and MM/NpDCL/W3L/1M/DE-2/A3/ D.No. 610/25 Dt 30/OI/2025 and Lr.No.CGM/p and MM/NPDCL/WGr /GM/DE-2/A3lD.No.49BO Dt L7.L2.2024 and unitateraily disqualifying the petitioner which act if permitted tantamount to blacklisting the petitioner as illegal arbitrary without any authority contrary to the provisions of the I 2 purchase orders and the conditions of the tender specifications setting aside the same consequenUy declaring the same as contrary to the provisions of law violative of articles 1,4, Lg and 21 oF the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of Natural lustice in utter violation of law laid down by apex court in M/S. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd Vs Union of India and others (1975) 1 SCC 70 and pass....,,

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the.2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings Lr.No. CGM/p & MM/NPDCL/WGL/3M/DE-L/A3ID.No. 6tO/2\, 30/07/2025 and Lr.No.CGM/p and MM/NPDCVWGt /1M/DE_ 2/A3/D.No.4980, dated L7.12.2024 to the petitioner and unilaterally disquarified the petitioner which act if permitted tantamounts to blacklisting the petitioner as illegal arbitrary without any authority, contrary to the provisions of the purchase orders and the conditions of the tender specifications and aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. R ED HER co D I J

4. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings, Lr.No.CGM/ P&MM/ NPDCL/ W GL/ GM / DE- 2lA3lD.No.6!O/25 of the znd respondent, dated 3O.O1.2O25 issued to the petitioner indicates that it is a notice issued to the petitioner, informing the petitioner to arrange the joint inspection of failed 5 PTRs at petitioner's location/premises MVA immediately for further action in the matter. 5 A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings, Lr. No.CGM/ P&M M/ N PDCL / W GL I GM / DE- 2/ A3(D.NI.49AO of the 2nd respondent, dated L7.L2.2O24 issued to petitioner in particular para No.12 also indicates that it is only the request made to the petitioner to program to communircate and complete the joint inspection of failed SMVA PTRs at petitioner's location/premises within one week of receipt of the said notice, dated 17.12.2024.

6. A bare perusal of the Notice vide Lr,No. c E / P&M M / N PDOL / w GL / GM / DE- 2 / A3 / D.No.7 4 L / 25, dated O6.O2.2025 of the 2nd respondent issued to the I I I 4 petitioner filed by the tearned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner atong with Memo, dated LO.O2.2O2S also indicates that it is a show_cause notice assued to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to submit petitioner,s consent attending joint inspection at any authorized repairing agency of TGNPDCL or at petitioner,s factory duly mentioning the date within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, dated 06.O2 .2OZS. 7 notices This Court opines that in view of the fact that all the three Notaces, dated 3O.O1.202S, 17.12.2fl24, 06.02.2025 clearly indicate that they are onty issued to the petitioner pertaining to conducting of joint inspection with TGNPDCL officials with regard to rectification of 3 Nos. 33/tt KV S.O MVA power Transformers of ECE Make bearing Sl.No:H_2O3g/lB against purchase Order No. pM-5S94/1g, dated 20.06.2018, St.No:H-l 469/16 against purchase Order No. PM-4722/LS, dated 13.O1.2016 and St.No.H- L297/16 against Purchase Order No. PM-454,-/t5, FI ) dated 15.07.2015 and in fact admittedly as borne on record no decision agaanst the petitioner had been taken as on date and hence, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents herein in issuing the said notices to the petitioner is arbitrary and illega!.

8. This Court opines that notices impugned in the present Writ Petition in fact uphold the principles of natural justice by affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond to the specific requests made by the 2"d respondent to the petitioner through the said three notaces by ensuring that the rights of the petitioner to whom it is issued stand protected and the issuance of the said three (03) notices to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in fact reasonably indicate fairness before any action is proposed to be taken against the petitioner herein. This Court on perusal of the record opines that it

9. is always open to the petitioner to submit petitioner's objections in respect of the above said three notices to 6 the respondent Nos.1 & 2 very ctearly explaining the infringement of the rights of the petitioner by the respondent Nos. I & 2 by virtue of issuance of the said notices and the respondent Nos.1 & 2 woutd eventually consider the same in accordance to law and take a decision on the subject issue.

10. fn Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2oo6) 12 SCC 28: ArR 2oo7 sc 9o@ the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, held as follows:

13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others lT 19 9s (B) SC 331. S Decial Director and a nother VS Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and nother AIR 2OO4 SC 7467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001( 10) SC C 639. State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma a nd another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

74. The reason why ordinarilv a writ oetition should not be entertained aoainst a mere show- cause notice or charoe-sheet is that at that staqe the writ oetition mav be held to be oremature. A 7 mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some riqht of any Darty i infrinoed. A mere show- cause notice or charqe-sheet does not infrinqe the rioht of anv one. It is onlv when a final order imoosino some ounishment or - otherwise adverselv affectinq a Darty is passed, that the said oartv can be said to have anv orievance.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.

11. In Ministry of Defence V. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2O12) 11 SCC 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- 8 "Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having.no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely alfecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thos, a chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. " L2. Taking into consideration:- a) The contents of the notices, dated 3O.O1.2025, L7.L2.2O24 and O6.02.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. b) The fact as borne on record that no final decision as on date had been taken by the 2'd respondent against the petitioner. c) The view of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) I I I i) Union of India Vs. KunisettY Satyanarayana, reported in (2OO6) 12 SCC 28: AIR 2007 sc 906. ii) Ministry of Defence V. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2O12) 11 SCC 565 This Court at this stage opines that the present Writ Petition filed questioning the impugned notices dated 3O.01.2025 and t7.t2.2O24 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent is premature and accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit all the objections pertaining to the said notices, dated 30.Ot.2O25, L7'L2'2O24 and 05.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent within one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and upon receipt of the said objections from the petitioner, the respondent Nos'1 & 2 shall take a decision on the subject issue in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within two (O2) weeks 1 l0 thereafter and duly communicate the decisaon on the subject issue to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// / sD/-. A. PRAtrHrMA ASSISTANT RRGIPTRAR \ SECTION OTFICER

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, TGNPDCL (Telangana Northern Power Distribution), Of Telangana Ltd., Corporate Office, 5th Floor, Corporate Office, O/o H.No. 2-5-3112, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana 506001 .

2. The Chief Engineer (P and MM), TGNPDCL (Telangana Northern Power Distribution), First Floor, No 2-5-3112, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana 506001 Buildings, T.S., Hyderabad

3. The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Secretariat 4. One CC to SRl. A. CHANDRA SHAKER, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI P.V.S PRASAD, SC FOR TGNPDCLIOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies BM @ I IIl i J ! !j-l_ CC TODAY STATE o 1 v, l c 1\ rtB $15 4.-, HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 ORDER WP.No.3779 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {-\