Aytha Sridhar v. 1. The Singareni Collaries_Company Limited

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of India 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 particu larly.one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings Vide Ref. No. CRP/CMC1E142300O5715692, dated 27.11.2024 in forfeiting the Security Deposit and also penalizing the petitioner for an amount of equivalent to twice the amount of the security deposit and directing the same will be recovered from the bills of the Contractor i.e., petitioner herein and further directing to recover the cost of the coal of 190 Tonnes from the Bills at market price and consequential notice issued by the Respondent No 4 vide Ref No BHP/KTKOC-IlllP-2412O25123 dated 9.01.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the agreement dated 07.11.2023, and Contrary to order passed by this Hon'ble Court lr WP No. 4569 of 2O24 daled 11.09202+ and without following due process of law, as such the action of Respondents is in Violation of principles of natural lustice and the same is illegal, arbitrary a'rd violative of articles 14,19,21,19 (1)(g) of Constitution of lndia and consequent'y set-aside the impugned proceedings dl. 27 .11 .2024 and consequential notice dt. 09.O1 .2025 same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumst;rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to reconsider the Case of the petitioners n terms of the Agreement dated 07.11.2023, by suspending the lmpugned Pror;,eedings dated 27.11.2024 Vide Rel'. No. CRP/CMC1E1423000571 5692 and Consequential Notice dated 09.01 .;2025 issued by the Respondent No 4 'ride Ref. No. BHP/KTKOC-IlllP -2412025123, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NIMMALA SAMANVITHA counser ror the Respono""t"' ?Sl?3['jlt8iHt.fi="%or".,=*,.* co LrD) The Court made the following: ORDER i) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.82a7 0F 20,25 ORDER: With the consent of both the parties' this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admissions stage itself'

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Atttcle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "ouiu^t"t'i '.-.to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mardamus ottt"r-g the action of Respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings vla" n?r'rq".cnp lcMc /Ei423ooo57 / 5692' dated 27.11.2024 in forfeitrng the security Deposit and also penalizing the to twice the amount of tJle security petitioner fo. ,., .*o,,ti oi directirg the same will be recovered from the bills of the i"p""" ".a Contractor i."., p.titlot'tt i"ttitt and further directing to recover the cost of ihe gi[. at market price and consequential the coal of tso ronnes ir;; notice issued by the Respondent No'4 vide. Rei No BHP/KTKoCJII/P- ii lzozs 1zz aaiea sol zbzs as illegal' arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the agreement i^iti oz l 'z{23' and contrary to order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No a569 oI 2C.24 dated ll Og '2024 and without following due process of 1aw, as such the action of Respondents.is in Viof^tioi of principles of natural justice and th-e same is illegal' aJbitrary of India and lg, zi, 19 (r) (g) of _constitution and violative of articles set-aside the impugned proceedings dt 27'll'2o24 anld ...""qr"*fy .t"""{"""ti"1 notice dt 09 O1 2025 same and pass " -i,

3. Heard Sri J. Ramachander Rao' learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.N.Samanvitha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, for the respondents' 2 PK. J Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submil s that the 4. petitioner is int olved in the buslness as a Transport Cc'ntractor in respondents-C c)mpany from the year, 2OO9 and upto 2(23' twenty four contract u,orks were awarded in favour of the petiti,rner by the respondents-( rompany. On 13.O9 '2023, uide order No 7( 10000968 1 ' the petitioner t'as awarded work for transportation of coz'l from KTK OC-II and KTi{ OC-III, BHP area to GDK OCP-1 CHP of RG-III area and GDK-6 CIJP of RG-II area on weight basis for a period of one year and in pursuiulce of the same, the petitioner entered intlr agreement with the respondents-Company oo 07 'll 2023 and frcm the said date, the petit ioner is carrying on the contract $'ork \ i'ithout arly deviation. However, the respondents have issued he present impugned or<lt:r, dated 27.11.2024 stating that the resprrndents will recover the cost of the theft coal of 19OT at market prites from the pending bills of the petitioner and consequential proceeilings, dated a mount of Og .Ol .2025, were issued to Rs. 1,4 1,46, 1O 8.52 I - from the pending bills of the petition 3r' Further' it is true that rrs per Clause 5.14 of the agreement, dated O7 11'2023, if the cost ol coal found short, the same u'ill be deducr ed from the recover an Contractor's lr'alsport bi1ls. But, in the case of the petiti'rner, though the Security ()fhcer of the respondents Company has srrbmitted his 3 w P.No-42a7 ot2025 report, dated 16.02.2024, stating that no much difference was found in mine quanlity and CHP quantity, the respondents have issued the present impugned orders. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to direct the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner duly taking into consideration the Security Offrcer's report, dated 76.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders, within a stipulated period of time.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that basing on the report, dated 13.02.2024, submitted by the Vigilance Department, impugned order, dated 27.17.2024, was issued stating that the respondents will recover the cost of the theft coal of lgOT at market prices from the pending bills of the petitioner and consequentially, impugned proceedings, dated 09.01.2025, were issued to recover arr amount of Rs. 1,41,46,108.521- from the pending bills of the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the impugned orders were passed without taking into consideration the Security Offrcer's report, dated 76.02.2024, the respondents will reconsider the case of the petitioner duly taking into consideration the Security Officer's report, dated 76.02.2024. , i + (-,

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that whilc p'assing the impugnedorclt.rs,therespondentshavenottakenintocolrsideration the Sccurity Ofhcer's report, dated 16.02'2024, from u here' it is evident that tlrr:re is not much difference in load point z nd unload point. Horvet e r, as per the ciause 5.14 of the agreerrrent, dated 07 .11.2023, 'tt is contractor's responsibititg to arrange to haue the tortes loaded tct the carrying copacitg and leueled The ktaded truck tLtilt be uteighed. ot coal looding and unloading points Th''- Compong offcials ore enti.tled. to inspect the trucks at ang time befort the coal is unloaded at the specified- place. If such inspection reueals t'1at the coal is remoued" frctm truck, he uill couse if to be uteighed aEtin and the cost of Coal ,lound short rttill be deducted from the Contractor(s)'s tra nsport fii!!5: (the weighment error tuithin the allotuctbte limits of weights ancl. nu:asures Act for that capacitg of the ueigh b'idge u'tould be alLotuecl). ''herefore, this Court deems it appropriate tr; direct the respondents lo reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate old ers.

7. In view cf the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the responderts to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Clause 5. '1 of the agreement, dated 07.11.2023, duly taking into consideration --he Security Officer's report, dated 76.02.2024, atd 5 w P.ND-O2E/ ol 2025 without reference to impugned orders, dated 27 .7I.2024 and

09.O1.2025, ald pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shali stand closed. No costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collaries Company Limited, (A Government Company), Kothagudem Collaries, Bhadradri- Kbth6gudem District. 2 3 4 q 6 7 The General Manager, Contract Management, Corporate Contract Management Department, P.O. Kothagudem Collidries Bhadradri- Kothagudem District. The Director (Project and Planning), P.O. Kothagudem Collieries, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The Project Officer, KTKOC-Ill Project, Bhupalpalli Area, Bhadradri- Kothagudem Eistrict. One CC to SRI NIMMALA SAMANVITHA, Advocate. tOpUCl One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC for Singareni Collieries Company Limited. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK BS \ t ( +5 ,j 7. 1 .{E S 14 r(. O I APB 2025 C D,. jP \Tr' ,,<c} .a'- t HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.8287 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,lo .3 4 r /a /<-<