Disposed

M/s. Gvns Toll Way Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2025WP/29134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A toll concessionaire challenged termination of its BOT concession agreement for a high-level bridge over the Musi River without prior explanation. With the agreement period having lapsed pending adjudication, the court granted liberty to apply for conciliation under Clause 44.2, with respondents to respond within eight weeks, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file conciliation application under Clause 44.2 of Concession Agreement dated 10.02.2009; respondents to consider within eight weeks; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

M/s. Gvns Toll Way Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29134 OF²⁰²³

¶8

Between:

¶9

tV/s. GVNS Toll Way P\i,t. Ltd, Regd.^Office at^{PlotNo.46A, VettuvankeniFirst} Avenue Main Road, [njambakkam^{Village, Chennai- 600 115.} [ep.^{by its-Director} Mr.T.Satish Kumar, S/5. Late BhaskaraRao,^{aged 48 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o.Flat} No.601, Hamptons Ark Terminus Apts.,^{High Tension Road, RaghavendraColony,} Kondapur, Hyderabad^- 500 084. ,"

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary (R and B), Telangana} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Engineer-in-Chief,^(R and B), S.R^{8s CRNand tVlD, TSRDC,Errummanzil,} Hyderabad.

¶14

Telangana State Road, Development^{Corporation,Rep.by its Managing} Director, ErrummTanzil, Hyderabad.

¶15

National Highway^(l\ilORTH), Rep.^{by its Engineer-in-Chief (R and B), NHs,} CRF and Buihings, Errummanzil,^Hyderabad.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 ol the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{fited therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{direction more particularlyonein} the nature of writ of Mandamus,^{or anyother appropriate writ, orderor direction,} declaring the action of the^{respondentNo.2 in issuing the proceedings/notice} No.270606/APRDC/GM(RDC/DCE-1^{/DEE(9/AEE13/BOT/MUS l/20 I 1 dated 12-} 10-2023 terminating the concession^{AgreementNo. 15/2008-09dated10-02-2009} without affording reasonable opportunity^{to submit explanationto the allegations} contained therein as illegal,^{arbitrary, contrary to the terms andconditions}

¶18

contained in the concession Agreement No- r51200g-09 dared 10-02-2009 and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same.

¶19

LA.NO:1 OF 2023

¶20

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 grant ' rnterim suspension of the proceed ings/notice No.270606/ ApRDc/ cM(RDCy DCE-1 /DEE('IAEE1 3/Bor rWusl t2o1'r dated 12-10-2023 issued by the respondent No.2pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

l.A.NO: 20F 2023

¶22

Petition Under section r5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant lnterim direction to the respondent No.2 to alow the petitioner to operate the toll plaza at high-rever bridge across Musi River from Km.6/6 to Km.zt2 of Miryalguda-Kodad Road incruding approaches in rieu of existing causeway in Nalgonda District under Bor Scheme in the interest of justice pending disposar of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the^petitioner : SRI C.RAGHU, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. CH.SHRAVANT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.29134 of 2o23

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present Writ Petition is liled under Article 226 of

¶30

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶31

"... to issue an appropriote writ, order or^{directionmore} particulorly one in the noture of Writ .of Mandomus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the dction of respondent No.z in issuing the proceedingsl notice No.27 o606l^{APRDqCM(RDC)IDCE-tl} DEE(illAEEB|BOT|MUSIl2oll, dated 12.10.2023 terminating^the Concession Agreement No.15l2oo8-og doted 10.o2.2oo9 without affording reosonoble opportunity to submit explonotion to the ollegations contoined therein os illegol, orbitrory, contrdry to the terms ond conditions contoined in the Concession Agreement^{No.15l2oo8-o9} ddted 1o.02)oo9 ond in violotion of principles of noturol^justice ond set aside the same and pass.-. "

¶32

Heard Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing l\tls. Ch.Shravani, learned counsel for the

¶33

petitione r and lcarned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶34

Roads and Buildings appearing for the respondents.

¶35

Lcarned Senior Counscl for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the impugned order dated

¶36

12.IO.2023 passed by the respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) 1n proceedings No.27A606 IAPRDC/GM(RDC)/DCtr- 1/ DEE(e) /Atrrl I 3/BOT/MUSI/20 I 1

¶37

¶38

Learned Senior Counsel for the^{petitioner further} submits that the petitioner has a valid^contractwith respondent-authorities for the construction^{of high-1eve1bridge} across Musi Rivcr from I(m.6/6 to Rrll.7 12 of MiryalgudaKodad Road, Nalgonda District under BOT scheme^vide Agt.No. 15/08-0-/CE(R&B),MD,APRDC dated 10.02.2OO9. Tt:'e said bridge was completed in Februa5r, 2O1O and the same was opened for trafhc and the Concessionaire was permitted to collect To11 fee frorn 19-02.2010 onwards up to 28.02.2024 Before completion o[ the agreement dated 10.02.2009, the respondent authorities have issued impugned termination dated 12.7O.2O23. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ pctition.

¶39

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of admission. this Court has not granted any interim order. Meantime, period was completed. In view of the same, he requested this Court to permit the petitioner to approach the respondents for Conciliation as per Clause 44.2 of the Conciliation of Dispute Resolution between

)

I I

the petitioner ald the respondent No.2 in view of^the agreement entered into by the^{petitioner and the respondent} No.2.

¶44

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Roads and Buildings submits that the respondents^{have no objection,} if the petitioner file an application for Conciliation as^per Clause 44.2 :under Article 44 of t!l,e Dispute Resolution^{in view} of the agreement entered into by the^{petitioner and the} respondent No.2.

¶45

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ Petition 1S disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application for Conciliation as per Clause 44.2 of the Concession Agreement, dated lO.O2.2OO9 entered into by the petitioner and respondents. After making such application, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders within eight (08) weeks thereafter

¶46

¶47

Miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶48

petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶49

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

secrroKrcen

The Principal Secretary (R & B), Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶54

The Engineer-in-Chief, (R and B), S.R 8s CRN and MD, TSRDC, Errummanzi[, Hyderabad.

¶55

The Managing Director, Telangana State Road, Development Corporation, ErrummTanzil, Hyderabad.

¶56

The Engineer-in-Chief (R and B), National Highway (N/ORTH), NHs, CRF and Buildings, Errummanzil, Hyderabad.

¶57

Two CC's to G.P FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶58

One CC to SRI CHENNABOINA SHRAVANI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010712025

ORDER

o i{ T;ta- S;4
( L
t) 0 I nuo zozs
0.

WP.No.29134 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Io-
<br>

M/s. Gvns Toll Way Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Gvns Toll Way Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

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

Salvaji Venkata Ramana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Cheruku Sree Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The Vimalananda Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Jaipal Reddy Tankasala Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Parvathi Madhav Yejage, Vs State of Telangana