Dismissed

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. v. Union of India

Telangana HC4 Mar 2014WA/1019/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal dismissed an impugned order of the Single Judge that denied interim injunction relief in a writ petition concerning natural gas supply, RLNG usage, PLF targets, and tariff bill recoveries. The High Court declined interference, noting refund claims belong in the main petition, but directed its expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The Writ Petition is directed to be posted before the Single Judge within six months.

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.1019 OF 2012

¶4

Date: 04.03.2014

¶5

Between:

¶6

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Progressive Towers 6-2-913/914, Khairatabad Hyderabad – 500 004 Rep. by its Vice President – Legal & Corporate Affairs Sri Amardeep Jaiswal, and another

¶7

… Appellants

¶8

And

¶9

Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhavan New Delhi – 110 001, and six others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶13

WRIT APPEAL No.1019 OF 2012

¶14

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶15

The petitioners in W.P. No.21469/2012 preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant the interim relief as prayed for pending the Writ Petition.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The main writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus

¶17

(a) directing respondents No.1 and 2 to take all necessary s te p s and comply with directives and commitments made/issued pursuant to meeting convened by GOI, Ministry of Power vide its letter dated 23^rd November 2009, to allocate and supply natural gas of 1.78 MMSCD which would enable the 1^st Petitioner to achieve at least 75% PLF and to direct the Respondents No.3 to 7 to permit the 1^st Petitioner to use RLNG to the extent of shortfall in supply of natural gas so as to enable the 1^st Petitioner's power plant to achieve at least 80% PLF;

¶18

(b) and consequently direct that upon failure of Respondents to make available natural gas/permit use of RLNG, the 1^st Petitioner is not liable to be penalized or for recovery of any sum from the 1^st Petitioner for not achieving the requisite PLF in terms of the PPA;

¶19

(c) to pass any such further order(s), which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.

¶20

Along with the writ petition, the writ petitioners/appellants herein filed WPMP No.27510 of 2012 with a prayer to restrain the respondents 3 to 7 from recovering, deducting, adjusting any sum already paid as capacity charge during tariff year 2011-12 and consequently direct them to pay in full all tariff bills submitted by the 1^st Petitioner from July 2012 onwards. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said W.P.M.P.No.27510/2012 holding:

¶21

“Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of interim relief with a direction to the respondents to honour the bills that may be submitted from June, 2012 onwards because respondent Nos.3 to 7 are entitled to credit those amounts as petitioners, prima facie, are bound to refund the amounts that have been received for the tariff year 20112012. In the facts and circumstances of the case, clause 5.7 of P.P.A. does not attract. This clause has to be read in consonance with clause 5.2(c) of P.P.A. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.”

¶22

Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

¶23

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, we do

¶24

not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under appeal. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge the entitlement of the petitioners for refund of the amount requires consideration only in the main writ petition. Therefore, pending the writ petition the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant injunction as prayed for.

¶25

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of the fact that the pleadings are complete, we deem it appropriate to request the learned Single Judge to decide the main Writ Petition expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

It is made clear that the appellants herein/writ petitioners are at liberty to pursue the Miscellaneous Petitions pending in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. It is further made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and that the Writ Petition may be disposed of on its own merits.

¶27

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, and the Registry is directed to post the Writ Petition along with the Miscellaneous Petitions before the learned Single Judge as per the Roster. No costs.

¶28

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶29

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶30

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶31

Date: 04.03.2014 Mva

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, Vs Karvy Computershare Private Limited

Chellingi Gowri Srinivasa prasad, Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Ravulapalem

M/s H.P. Sharma Processors Vs Kailash Chandra Gaur

Nadella Prasad Vs Yadlapati Gopala Krishna Murthy

Annayavari Swarnalatha Vs Annayavari Saiprasad

G.Ramalingeswara Rao Vs M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited