SRI Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M v. B. S. NARASIMHA ANUDEEP

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IvIANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. authorities in considering the representation dated 13.10.2025 submitted by the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, high-handed, without jurisdiction, and in clear viotation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g); 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, as welt as contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently, to direct the Respondent officials to return the amount of Rs.16,38,819/together with interest at the rate of 24%. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the representation of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counset for the Petitioner: SRI Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. V. B. S. NARASIMHA ANUDEEP Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY, S.C. FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. The Court made the following: ORDER I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.37669 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER:- 09.12-2025 BETWEEN Aytha Sridhar, S/o. Rajamallu, Rl/o.Mancherial District. AND .. . Petitioner The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bhadradri Kothagudem District & 5 others. : . ORDER:- 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 13.10.2025 submitted by the petitioner and to return an amount of .. Respondents Rs.16,38,819/- together with interest @24Yo. a

2. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.V.B.S.Narasimha Anudeep, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Perused the record. \ 2 NBK,J w_37669-m25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been a transport contractor with Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) since 2009 and was executing the work order dated '13.09.2023 without deviation. He submits that on 13.02.2024, two lonies belonging to the petitioner, were falsely alleged to have been found carrying leftover coal near Nagaram Village. He submits that the weighment details issued by the respondent authorities, certified by the DGM (E&M), OC-l CHP and the Project Officer, KTK OC-lll, show that the mine quantity and CHP quantity tally with negligible variance. Hence, no shortage of coal or misappropriation arises. He submits that the impugned proceedings dated 22.O7.2025 were issued without proper consideration of the petitioner's representation and without adhering to the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.4569 ot 2O24and W.P.No.8 287 ot 2025. He further submits that Clause 5.14 ol the contract agreement allows deduction of shortage from'bills but does not authorize forfeiture or the imposition of double penalties. He further submits that the allegation of I removing GPS/RFID trackers is an afterthought as it was not mentioned in the FIR or charge sheet. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary in violation of natural justice and contrary to the binding judicial directions earlier issued by this Court. I { 3 \ \ 3 NBK,J Wp_37669_m25

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for SCCL submitted that two lorries deployed by the petitioner were found car.rying undeclared quantities of coal (9.1T and 2.45T) near a brick kiln at Nagaram Village in violation of Clause Nos.7.6, 17.3 and 17.4 of the contract. He submits that the GPS/RFID trackers had been removed from the vehicles indicating deliberate misconduct. He submits that the petitioner failed to explain the presence of coal in the intercepted lorries and the coal recovered from the locality linked to his operationa! area substantiates misconduct. He further submits that the respondents have taken the impugned action strictly as per contractual terms after giving the petitioner due opportunity, including personal hearing, as directed by this Court in earlier orders.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and upon examining the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that it is not in serious dispute that the coal recovered near Nagaram Village from the petitioner's lorries weighed 11.55 tonnes in total. The respondents ) are entitled to act against any contractual violation and the retention of the recovered quantity is justified. However, it is also noted that the petitioner had executed transportation work for the period from

01.02.2024 to 16.02.2024 and there is no material to suggest that 4 NBK,J Wp_37669-2025 t beyond the recovered 11.55 tonnes, the remaining coal was not delivered. Therefore, denial of the entire pending bill for the said period is not legally sustainable.

6. ln view of the above discussion, the Writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The respondents are entitled to retain the amount equivalent to the value of 9.1 tonnes and 2.45 tonnes of coal recovered from the petitioner's two lonies i ntercepted on 1 3.02.2024; (ii) The respondents shall release the remaining pending bills to the petitioner on or before 24.12.2025 and continue the contract. (iii) The impugned proceedings dated 22.07-2025 is set- aside to the extent indicated above.

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. . PONNA KRISHNA S TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER a //TRUE COPY// To Kothagudem District.

1. The C_h_airman and Managing Director, Sinqareni (A . GOVERNMENT cbrr,r"enNvlq 'i;iffi;j fles Company Li mited, Collieries, Bhadradri- 2. The Director (personner Administration and werfare), singareni coilieries ^ 9gmpqly t-td, p.O KothaguOem, Ahidiidri *orriiroerii Distri'ct. 3. The Director (ooeratiois), qinseleni C;i6ril 6;;;;y Ltd., p.o _ Kgthagudem Bnaoiaori Xotn'dqudefi biii,t"tl-"'-"' 1[iai;n"g$r,l"r"J"H*sgHBa]ll,i*tcorrieriescompanvLtdpo 5. The General Manager, llvtateiiat pr;.cur1;;t)-d;; collieries companv : iF; p:5'ftiirJtlo1'#'bn"aradri Kothasude, o,",r,|f'"n' o. I ne Generat Manaoer. I\rlanuguru Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., p.O _ Kothas_udem, Man us]uru e r,io riiiixoihisl-d6;6i"tn"t. I. 9n" CC to SRt nlt. v. a s. ru4p4stM-i'A-XftJdEEF, Advocate ropuct e. glt_e c_c to SRr p. sRt HARSHA neoov, i.c.-r"fti;;;;;""it",,iri;JJbo. r_tu 9. Two CD Copies loPUcl - & MP BS / t HIGH COURT DATED:09/1 212025 ORDER WP.No.37669 of 2025 ! DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I \\ 1,h \ b