Dismissed

Sitaram Spinners P. Ltd. v. The Government of India

Telangana HC4 Jan 2023WP/23695/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for 4% interest subsidy under the TUFS scheme. The court held that the Nodal Bank did not establish eligibility, and since the petitioner did not challenge the impugned order, the petition could not succeed.

What did the court decide?

No interest subsidy or reimbursement was granted; the petition was dismissed.

Sitaram Spinners P. Ltd. Vs The Government of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

I³¹⁶⁸ I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23695 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sitaram Spinners P. Ltd, Registered^{OfficeRamaTowers,D.No.5-4-83,2nd} Floor, TSK Chambers, M.G.Road, Secunderabad-^{03 Rep. by its Managing} Director, Mr. Pramod Agarwal,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The Government of lndia, Ministry of TextilestUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi110107.

¶13

The Textile Commissioner, Government^{of lndia, New CGO Building, New} Marine Lane, Mumbai-4O0 020.

¶14

The State Bank of lndia, Commercial^{Branch (TUFS Cell), NGN Vaidyatvlarg'} Harriman Circle, Fort Mumbai^-400 001,^{Rep. by its Branch Manager.}

¶15

The State Bank of lndia, lndustrial^{Finance Bank, Raj BhavanRaod,} Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Siite Ban( of Hyderabad, C^{and l, Banking Division, GunfoundryBranch,} Hyderabad, now merged in State Bank^{of lndia.}

¶17

The Andhra Bank, Pattabhi Bhavan^{Branch,Hyderabad' Now mergedin} Union Bank of lndia

¶18

...RES,.NDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or^{any other} appropriate writ, direction order or^{orders declaringthe actionof the respondents} in not admitting the term loan of^{Rs.30lcroresgranted by SBH (now SBI) on} 11-03-2010, Rs.15/- crores^{granted by SBI on 06-05-2010and Rs.22lcrores} granted buy Andhra Bank (now Union Bank) on 22-06-2010^{to the petitioner for} the benefit of interest of subsidy of^{4 percentagep'a. under TUFS as wholly} arbitrary, illegal anQ void and consequently^{directthe respondents to admit the} term loan of Rs.67l crores to 4 %^{interest subsidy under TUFS from the} respective dates of sanction of^{loans and also reimburselhe 4 oh interest}

¶20

collected^{fromthe petitionertill the date of admission of the loans for 4 ok interest} benefits with^{interest thereon}

¶21

lA NO:¹ oF²⁰²⁰

¶22

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} directtherespondents4to6tocollectinterestaftergiving4percentilesubside ontheloansadvancedbythemtothepetitionerpendingdisposalofthewrit petition

¶23

Counset for the^{Petitioner: SRl. BANALA SURESH}

¶24

counset for the Respondents^{No.'l &2: SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERALOF INDIA} Counsel forthe^{RespondentsNo. 3 to 5: M/s' PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES} The Gourt made^{the following: ORDER}

¶25

¶26

HON'I}LE SRI JUSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITIO^{N No.23695 OF 2020}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Mr. M.P. Chandramouli,^{leamed senior counsel} representing Mr.^{Banala Suresh, learned counselfor the petitioner and} IWs. Pearl Law^{Associates, leamedcounsel lor respondentNos'3 to 5} and leamed Deputy^{Solicitor General of Indiaappearing on behalf of} respondent Nos.l^{and 2.}

¶29

This writ petition^{is filed to declare the action of respondents} in not admitting^{the term loan of Rs.30.00crores grantedby State} Bank of Hyderabad^{(SBH' now State Bank of India) on ll'03'2010;} Rs.15.00 Crores^{granted by State Bankof lndia (SBI) on 06'05'2010} and Rs.22.00 Crores^{granted by the Andhra Bank (now Union Bank)} on22.06.2010^{to the petitioner for the benefitof interestof subsidy of} 4o/o per annum under^{Trade Up-gradationFund Scheme (TUFS)as} illegal and for a^{consequentialdirectionto the respondentsto admit} thetermloanofRs.6T'00Croresto4oZinterestsubsidyunderTUFS from the respective^{dates of sanction of loansand also reimbursethe}

¶30

Kt,,J W.P. No.23695 of2020

¶31

said 4yo interest collected lrorn the petitioner till the date of admission

¶32

ol the loans tbr 47t, interest benefits with interesi therein.

¶33

Bricf FACTS OF THE CASE:

¶34

i) The Governrnent of India to boost the Textile Industry, to up bring the Technology Advancement to upgrade the Machinery brought up the Scheme called 'Trade tJp-gradation Fund Scheme (hereinafler called as 'TUFS') w.e.f. 01.04.1999 which was in force for a perioC of eight (08) Years i c., till 01.04.2007.

¶35

ii) At the end of the scheme period, the Government reviewed,

¶36

analyzed the said Scheme and found it helped in huge investments of

¶37

Rs. 1,1 6,98 I .00 Crores and helped in Transition from qualitative restricted trade to market driven local merchandise. Due to the positive effects of the Scheme, the Govemment had extended the said Scheme for further period frorn 0l .04.2007 to 3 1.03.2012, by resolution No.6l4 of 2017 - CTI in May,2018.

¶38

iii) As per Clause - 5 III (l) (C) of the Scheme, it will provide interest reimbursernent of 5o/o points on the interest charge by the Lending Agency on a project for up-gradation ofthe Technology and

¶39

KL,J W.P. No.23695 of2020

¶40

¶41

¶42

for machinery, the reimbursement will be 4% points for a period of ten (10) years.

¶43

ir) The petitioner herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is in Textile business and it is a Spinning Mill. It has applied for a loan lor purchase of machinery with respondent Nos.3 to 6 banks for the subsidized interest loan under the aforesaid TUFS. The said loan is for the purpose of purchase of machinery and, therefore, according to the petitioner, it is entitled for interest subsidy of 4% points. Under the Scheme, for Non-SSI Sector, IDBI Ltd., is the Nodal Agency for the loan financed by them. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 are among 13 Nodal Banks and State Bank of India (SBI) functions as Nodal Agencies for its seven (07) Associate Banks. Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH) is one among them.

¶44

v) The petitioner is a Spinning Mill with 27,360 spindles with capital outlay of Rs. 100.70 Crores. The share capital and internal amounts are Rs.33.70 Crores and Term Loans from the Banks are Rs.67.00 Crores. The consortium banks for sanction of the term loans are SBH, SBI and Andhra Bank. Respondent No.5 - SBH granted

¶45

\ t

¶46

¶47

KL,J^' W.P. No.23695 of2020

¶48

Rs.30.00 Crores on ll-03-2020, respondenr No.4 _ SBI sanctioned Rs. I5.00 Crores on 06-05-2010 and respondent No.6 _ Andhra Bank sanctioned Rs.22.00 Cores on 22_06_2010. AII the aforesaid loans were sanctioned under the aforesaid TUFS after Ol.O4.2OO7.

¶49

vi) Respondent No.2 had issued working instructions for the implementation of the Scheme, vide Circular No. I dated 25.06.2010. As per the said Circular, Nodal Agencies are required to submit information frorn initial stage of sanction of roan. The TUFS cells including respondent No.3 of the Lending Agencies are required to submit information in respect of Unitwise loan sanctioned by their branches within one (01) month from the date of sanction to the office of the Textile Commissioner in Format .A,. On receipt of the aforesaid information, respondent No.2 will issue I.D. number. On allocation of I.D. number, the TUFS Cell of the Lending Agency shall submit further information in Format 'B'. Then respondent No.2 will issue acknowledgement.

¶50

vii) The petitioner,s loan for the interest subsidy under TLIFS was not admitted. On enquiry it came to know that respondent No.5

¶51

¶52

KL,J W.P. No.23695 of 2020

¶53

has furnished the^{informationrequired in Form 'A' on 12.07.2010and} respondent No.3 furnished on^{13.07.2010to the Joint Textile} Commissioner and requested fbr^issuance of^{I.D. number. But,} respondent No.2 has not furnished^{I.D. number. Therefore,} respondent Nos.4 to 6 banks could^{not fumish informi(ion in fcrrmat} 'B' and obtain acknowledgement number.^{However,respondent} No.6 has obtained I.D.^{numberand alsoapplied for acknowledgement} in Format 'B'. But,^{respondent No.2 did not give the} acknowledgement number^{and, therefore,theycould not file claim for} subsidy.

¶54

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE^PETITIONER:

¶55

i) According to the^{petitioner, vide O.M. No.28(l)/201144S,} dated 02.06.20i l, in^case of^{omission/shortfallin subsidy claim by} Lending Agencies, the TUFS^{beneficiaries may appeal to the Textile} Commissioner i.e., respondent^{No.2 withinl0 days.Therefore,the} petitioner herein had sent a representation^{to respondentNo.2 on} 03.06.2011 through registered^{post. There is no response from} respondent No.2. It^{has also addressedletters to respondentNo.5}

¶56

¶57

KL,J W.P. No.23695 of2020

¶58

dated 27 .12.2011 , 28.12.2011 and 29.03.2012,, and also ro respondent No.4 on 29.03.2012.

¶59

ii) On receipt of the said letters, vide letter dated 07.04.2012, respondent No.5 requested respondent No.2 to allot I.D. number in respect of TUFS subsidy of the petitioner, borrower. It is also informed that rhere was delay in filing the claim in time in the Website of respondent No.1 and requested to condone the delay.

¶60

iii) The petitioner herein had also addressed another letter dated 16.04.2012 to the Joint Textile Commissioner for approval of loans under TUFS and pursued the matter personally. Respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that decisions wilr be taken in Interministerial Steering Committee (IMSC) meering dated I g.05.2012. But, there is no progress. The petitioner again addressed a letter dated 18'06.2012 to the Joint Textile commissioner. There was no response.

¶61

iv) The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 21.06.2012 to the Chairperson, IMSC_ cum_Secretary of Ministry of Textiles. There was no response. Another letter dated 12.07.2012 was

KL,J W.P. No.23695 of 2020

¶66

addressed by the^{petitionerby duly enclosing supportingmaterial.} There was no response.

¶67

v) The petitioner herein had^{fileda writ petition videW'P.} No.18021 of 2013 to^{declare the action ol the respondents in not} admitting the term loan of^{Rs.30.00Crores granted by SBHon} 11.03.2010; Rs. 15.00 Crores^{granted by SBI on 06.05.2010and} Rs.22.00 Crores^granted by^{the AndhraBank on 22.06.2010to the} petitioner for the benefit of interest subsidy of^{4%o per annumunder} TUFS as illegal, and for a consequential^{direction to the respondent} therein to admit the term loan of Rs.67.00^{Crores with 4% interest} subsidy under TUFS^{from the respective dates of sanctionof loans} and also reimburse the^{4o/o interestcollectedfrom the petitionertill the} date of admission of the^{loans for 4o/o interestbenefits with interest} thereon under TUFS.

¶68

vi) In the said writ^{petition, respondentNos.1 and 2 have filed} counter stating that^{the. claim for subsidy was not accepted as I'D'} number and acknowledgement^{numberwere not obtained within the} time specified^{underthe Scheme. There was delay in submissionof}

¶69

¶70

KL,J W.P. No.23695 of2020

¶71

¶72

the subsidy claim of the petitioner by respondent No.4. The said issue was examined by the Intemal Committee constituted by respondent No.2 and invalidated the same on the ground that the eligibility was not determined/established by respondent No.4. The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 02.03.2020. This Court considered the submission made by respondent No.4, Nodal Bank that it has recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for extending the said Scheme vide their letter dated 24.10.2018. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents informed this Court that Intemal Committee of respondent No.2 had examined the case of the petitioner and rejected it as it has not come within the parameters of the Scheme. It rvas further contended that if respondent No.4 Nodal Bank recommends the case of the petitioner once again, respondent No.2 would consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Recording the said submissions, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 02.03.2020 directing respondent No.2 to re-examine the recommendation made by respondent No.3 Nodal Bank dated 24.10.2018, and il' the petitioner is eligible for extension of the Scheme, respondent No.2 shall consider the case of the petitioner and

¶73

¶74

KL,J W.P. No.23695 o12020

-./

pass appropriate^{orders withina period ol four (04) months from the} date ofreceipt^{ofcopy ofthesaid order'}

¶79

vii) In compliance^{with the said order, respondent No'2 had} passed a speaking order^{dated 16.07.2020rejecting the claimof the} petitioner. Perusal of the^{saidspeakingorder would reveal that in} compliance of^{the order dated 02.03.2020passedby this Court in} W.P. No.18021 of^{2013, respondentNo.2 requestedthe petitioner to} appear before him^{on 29.12.2017to presenthis case personally' The} Chief Manager of^{TUFS Celt of respondentNo'4 - NodalBank'} Mumbai and^{representativesof respondentNo'5 were alsopresentin} the meeting. It^{was confirmed by the Officersof TUFS Cell' SBI'} Mumbai that the eligibility^{was not established by SBI, TU!-S Cell'} Mumbai. It^{was contendedby the petitionerthat sincerespondent} No.5 - SBI had^{submitteddocumentsdirectly to the office of} respondent No.2^{instead of submittingthem to TUFS-Cell,SBI'} Mumbai, it was^{the duty ofl respondent No'5 to send the necessary} documents^{to the TLIFSCell and that the petitioner- borroweris not} havinganyroletoplayinsubmissionofclaim'Therefore'the

¶80

¶81

¶82

KL.J W l'. No 21695 of2020 X

¶83

petitioner should not sufler lor the lapse on the part of the Bank, if he is otherwise eligible.

¶84

CON'I'lrNTlONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.3 to 5:

¶85

i) According to respondent }.los.4 and 5, they have to examine the claim made by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was of the opinion that respondent No.5 had no authority under the Scheme to determine the eligibility. Respondent No.2 also suggested whether TUFS Cell oi SBI may re-examine the case including the possibility of determining the eligibility afresh by calling all the relevant documents from respondent No.5 - SBH, Hyderabad, as per the guidelines of the Scheme and submit the same to the olfice ol the Textile Commissioner within a week for taking an appropriate view in the matter.

¶86

ii) Respondent No.4, vide letters dated 05.05.2018 and 01.06.2018, forwarded the list of machinery with a remark that upon verification of the documents, they have noticed that the name of the most machineries nrentioned in Invoice/Bills ol entrv dillers from those which are eligible as per GR and did not establish the eligibility

¶87

¶88

KL,J W.P. No.21695 of 2020

¶89

of Term Loan of Rs.67.00 Crores sanctioned^{under Consorlium} Financing. Thereafter, respondent^{No.4, vide letter dated 24.10.2018} has surprisingly established and^{submitted eligibility of term loan of} Rs.6l.4l Crores eligible for^{4%o interestreimbursement subsidyunder} MTUFS. Therefore, according^{to respondentNo.2, the said statement} made by respondent No.4 - Nodal Agency^{Bank vide its letter dated} 24.10.2018 does not resolve^{the issueraised itself earlier vide letters} dated 05.05.2018 and 01.06.2018.

¶90

6. ANALYSIS AND FINDING^{OF THE COURT:}

¶91

i) In the speaking order, it is specifically^{mentioned that in} terms of paragraph No.VII^{(iii) of GR on MTUFS, the eligibility was} to be established by Nodal Bank^{i.e., TUFS Cell of SBI, Mumbaiand} Online claim in terms of Circular^{No'2 (2008-09 series)dated} 24.04.2008 which was not done^{by the SBI'}

¶92

ii) IMSC in its meeting dated 14.11.2011,^{takena decision to} constitute an Intemal Committee^{by respondentNo.2 for the purpose} of examination of such cases^{on the basis of the followingcriteria} prescribed by IMSC:

¶93

¶94

¶95

KL.J i W.P. No.2i695 of2020 \

¶96

a. Initial tying up of finance with TTIFS;

¶97

b. Financial implication;

¶98

c. Copy o1'deterrnination of eligibility letter; and

¶99

d. Docurnentary proof for reasons for delay.

¶100

iii) On examination of documents, the Internal Committee had held that the petitioner Company as invalid on the ground that project scrutiny and determir.ration of eligibility was not done by the Nodal Bank and the same was confirmed by the SBI vide its letter No.CBM/TUFS/76, dated 26.07.2013. Respondent No.2 has also considered the fact that respondent No.4 has uploaded the details of term loan of Rs. I5.00 Crores sanctioned on 06.05.2010 and term loan of Rs.30.00 Crores sanctioned by SBH on 11.03.2010 under left out category accounts o. 09.0r.2014 and respondent No.6 has also uploaded the details of term loan of Rs.30.00 Crores sanctioned on 11.03.2010 under left out category accounts on Ol.ll.2Ol4. Therefore, there has been no change in the policy of the Government to extend benefit of TUFS to left out category accounts. In view of the decision of the Expenditure Finance committee dated 09.06.2015, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for extending benefit of

¶101

¶102

KL,J w.P. No.21695 of2020

¶103

TUFS in respect of term loan of Rs.67.00 Crores^{sanctionedunder} Consorlium Financing to the^petitioner. Thus, the^Expenditure Finance Committee in its meeting held on 09.06.2015 had decided^not to extend the benefit ofTUFS to the left out category accounts.

¶104

Therefore, with the said findings, respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2020.

¶105

iv) It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein did not challenge the aforesaid speaking order dated^{16,07.2020 of respondent} No.2 in the present writ petition. However, they have filed the^present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief which^is similar^{to the relief} sought in the earlier W.P. No.18021 of 2013.^{Thus,respondentNo.2} has complied with the aforesaid order dated^{02.03.2020 in the said} writ petition by considering the entire material including^the recommendation dated 24.10.2018 of respondent^{No.4- Nodal Bank.}

¶106

v) However, Mr. M.P. Chandra Mouli, leamed Senior Counsel, would submit that there is^{no fault on the pafi of the} petitioner, and due to the fault of the respondent^{banks,the petitioner} cannot be penalized. Though it^{has submitted its documents,}

¶107

¶108

KL,J f W.P. No.23695 of 2020

¶109

respondent No.2 did not consider the same. Though this Courl specifically directed respondent No.2 to consider the aforesaid recommendation dated 24.10.2018 of respondent No.4, Nodal Bank, respondent No.2 did not consider the same.

¶110

vi) Whereas, the respondents have filed counter stating that on receipt of letters from the petitioner, respondent No.2 requested the SBI, Commercial Bank, to assess the eligibility criteria of the machines purchased by the petitioner to claim interest subsidy and forward the same to respondent No.2. In compliance with the same, respondenl No.4 had submitted its letter dated 24.10.201g, the same was considered by respondent No.2 in the impugned order and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Reasons were given and it is a reasoned order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it has to challenge the order. Instead of doing so, the petitioner herein vide application dated 15.09.2020 requested the public Relations officer, office of respondent No.2 to furnish copies of letters dated 05.05.2018 and 01.06.2018 addressed by the Nodal Bank to respondent No.2, which are relied upon by respondent No.2 while

¶111

¶112

KL,J W.P. No.23695 o12020

¶113

rejecting the claim of the^{petitioner. Thus, there is no challenge to the} speaking order dated^16.07.2020.

¶114

vii) According to respondent No.2, SBI^- Nodal^{Bankdid not} establish the eligibility criteria of the disputed tenn loan and^{did not} submit online claims with respondent No.2.^{The said factswere} considered by IMSC and also respondent No.2.^{In the Internal} Committee appointed by IMSC held that the^claim of^{the petitioner} Company as invalid on the^ground that^{project scrutinyand} determination of eligibility was not considered.^{The sameis confirmed} by SBI, Nodal Bank vide its letter^{dated 26.07.2013.Therefore, the} recommendation of the SBI, Nodal Bank^{dated 24.10.2018is contrary} to the contents of its letter dated^{26.07.2013.In compliance ol the} aforesaid order dated 02.03.2020^passed by^{this Court in} W.P.No.18021 of 2013, opportunity was^{given to the petitioner and} also to respondent banks by respondent^{No.2. On considerationof the} entire material produced by them and^{also the Scheme, respondent} No.2 has rejected the claim made by the^{petitioner videthe aforesaid}

speaking order. I I

KL,J f W.P. No.23695 of 2020

¶119

viii) It is also relevant to note that respondent No.4 - SBI Nodal Bank vide its letters dated 05.05.2018 and 01.06.2018,

¶120

forwarded the list of machinery to respondent No.2 stating that by verification of the documents, it has noticed that the name of the most machineries mentioned in the Invoice/Bills of entry differs from those which are eligible as per GR and did not establish the eligibility of term loan of Rs.67.00 Crores sanctioned under Consorlium Financins. Thus, the contents of the letter dated24.10.2018 of SBI Nodal Bank arc contrary to the contents ol the letter dated 05.05.2018 and 01.06.2018. As rightly contended by leamed counsel for respondent No.2, the Nodal Bank cannot determine eligibility criteria and it is for respondent No.2 to consider the same. Thus, without chalienging the aforesaid speaking order dated 16.07 .2020, the petitioner cannot seek the aforesaid relief which they have already sought in W.P. No. 18021 of 2013. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the present writ petition. In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I
I

1 )

KL,J W.P. No.23695 o12020

¶125

¶126

7. CONCLUST ON:

¶127

The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However,

¶128

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶129

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶130

petition shall also stand closed.

¶131

¶132

//TRUE COPYII

¶133

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSTSTANT REGIST/ftAR

¶134

SECTION dFTICEN

¶135

To, 1. One CC to SRl. BANALA^{SURESH,Advocate} [OPUC] i. on" cCto sRt, cADt^{PRAVEENKUMAR,DEPUTYsollclroRGENERALoF} rNDrAloPUCl : one bc to'M/s. PEARL^{LAW ASSOCIATES,Advocate} [oPUC] 4. Two CD copies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410112023

ORDER

WP.No.23695 of 2020

it\ ATE
l
i'i 1B tt11 z$l l,
,. ,,.
.'i,._11. . ,.:..,,:;1.i
*.:..-i:. t l;'

¶142

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶143

e8& G \q,_ f,t')

Sitaram Spinners P. Ltd. v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Spinners P. Ltd. v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vattikonda Jangamma Vs The State of Telangana

Pochampally Madurramma and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

S.K. Khadim Hussain Vs State of Telangana

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

Vankayala Kamalamma Vs The State of Telangana

Nallavelli laxmi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others