Tirumala Rock Sand Manufacturing Unit Vs the State of Telangana

¶1

[3301 I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35375 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s TIRUMALA ROCK SAND MANUFACTURING UNIT, A Partnership firm, Having its Registered Office at Plot No.464 and 465, Sy.No.52, Prashanth Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District - 500 070 Represented by its Managing Partner, B. Nanda Reddy, S/o. B. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.17l1138611188, SN Reddy Colony, Champapet, Vyshali Nagar Post, Ranga Reddy District - 5000079.

¶9

...,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF TELANGANA LIMITED, Rep. by its lVlanaging Director, O/o,6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad-500 063.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (Operations), Saroornagar Circle, TGSPDCL, Ranga Reddy District O/o. Plot No.10, Road No 2, Sainagar Colony, Alkapuri, Ranga Reddy District-500035.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER Elect. Operations, Turkayamjal, TGSPDCL.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, Ranga Reddy District At integrated Collector Building, Kongarakalan, Ranga Reddy.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.4 in issuing the Notice Dated 1111212024, vide

¶18

--ffi7-r.f' /

¶19

Lr. No.ADE/OP/Turkayamjalal F.No.NOTlCEiD.No.1919/24-25 for disconnection^of power supply of Petitioner stone crushing untt contending to clear the alleged dues to the Respondent No.5 [/ines Department, without there being any damand/due notice from Respondent No.5 is arbitrary, ilegal, bad^{under law,} against the principles of natural Justice and in violation^c f Articles^{14, 19(1} )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the Notice Dated 1111212024, vide Lr.No.ADE /OP/ Turkayamlala /F.No. NOTICE /D.No. 1919 /2425, issued by the Respondent No.4

¶20

I.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} SUSPEND the impugned Notice Dated 1111212024, vide LT.No ADE/OP/ Turkayamjala /F No.NOTICE /D.No 1919 /24-25 issued b) the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : G.P FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER

¶27

d&a-E-: .:. r- : "7 ,/

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶29

W.P.No.35375 of 2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The nrit petition is filed u,ith the following prayer:

¶32

"to issue aI appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questionrng the action of the Respondents more particularl,y Respondent No.4 rn issuing the Notice, dated 11.12.2024 uide Lr.No.ADE/OP/Turkayamjala/F.No. Notice /D.No. 1919121-25 for disconnection of powcr supply of Petitioner unit contending to clear the alleged dues to the Respondent No.5 Mines Department $"ithout there being arly demand/due notice from responclent No.S is arbitrary, illegal, bad under law, against the principles of natural Justice and in violation of Articles la, 19(1Xg) and 21 of the Constitution of India a:rd consequently to set aside the Notice, dated 11.12.2024 L,tde Lr.No.ADE/OP/Turkayamjala/F.No.NOTICE/ D.No. 1919/24-25 issued by Respondent No.4".

¶33

Heard Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Enerry for respondent No.1; Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4; and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geolog/ appearing for respondent No.5.

¶34

(f

¶35

When the matter is taken up, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, on instructions, submits that as per the demand notice, dated 16.05.2024 issued by respondent No,5 under Section 34(1) of

¶36

w

¶37

z

¶38

T.S. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the petirioner Company has paid an amount of Rs.16,62,78 1/- through Ohallan bearing No.6404816846, dated 31.03.2025 torvards 2Ook o1' the admitted amounts under^(Jne Time Settlement (OTS). Schernt' to respondent No.5, for the revision application filed by the petitionr:r. The same is not seriouslv disputed b1' Iearned counsel for the perir roner.

¶39

[n view of the above, this Writ Petition is allou,ed and the impugned notice, dated 11.12.2024 uide t.r.No.ADE/OP/ Turkayarnjala/ F. No.Notice/ D. No. 1919/24-25 issuecl by respondent

¶40

No.4 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as t() costs.

¶41

\

¶42

SD/- B.REKHA^RANI ASSISTANT^REGISJRAR //TRUE COPY/' ,t . I sEcriq(^oFFlcER

¶43