Partly allowed

Aytha Sridhar, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Telangana HC9 Dec 2025WP/37669/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction regarding a representation by a transport contractor. The Court held that while the respondents could retain the value of coal recovered from the petitioner's lorries, the denial of the entire pending bill was not sustainable. It directed the release of remaining bills and setting aside of impugned proceedings to the extent indica

What did the court decide?

The respondents to retain the value of 11.55 tonnes of recovered coal; release remaining pending bills to the petitioner by 24.12.2025 and continue the contract; impugned proceedings set aside accordi

Aytha Sridhar, Vs The Singareni… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37669 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aytha Sridhar, S/o Rajamallu, Aged^{about 45 years, Occ.Business, H.No.1-235/4,} M'arathi Nagar, Road No. 3 lvlancherial^{District,Telangana}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited,^{(A Governm-en!C9mp11y)'. Rqq.} by. its C--hairman and lt/anaging Director,^{KothagudemCollieries, Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District.

¶12

The Director (Personnel Administration^{and Welfare),} _Singareni^Collieries Company Ltd, P.O Kothagudem, Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict.}

¶13

The Director (Operations), Singareni Collieries^{Company Ltd, P.O} Kothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶14

The Director (Project and^{planning), SingareniCollieries Company Ltd P.O} Kothagudem Collieries Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict.}

¶15

The General Manager,^{(Material Procurement) Singareni Collieries Company} Ltd, P.O Kothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem^District.

¶16

The General Manager, Manuguru^{SingareniCollieries CompanyLtd, P.O} Kothagudem, fVlanuguru Bhadradri Kothagudem^District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS^T

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} 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 RespondentNo.} authorities in considering the representation^{dated 13.10.2025 submittedby the} Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal,^{high-handed,without jurisdiction, and in clear}

¶19

¶20

viotation of Articles 14, 19^{(1) (g);} 21, and^{300-Aof the Constitutionof lndia, as} welt as contrary to the^principles of^{naturaljustice and fair play and consequently,} to direct the Respondent officials to^{return the amountof Rs.16,38,819/together} with interest at the rate of 24%.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition underSection 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe pleased to direct} the Respondent authorities to^consider the^{representationof the Petitioner} pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶23

Counset for the Petitioner:^SRI Y.^{SRINIVASA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING SRI M. V. B. S. NARASIMHA^ANUDEEP

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI^{P. SRI HARSHA REDDY,} S.C. FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY^LTD.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶28

AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.37669 of 2025

¶31

DATE OF ORDER:- 09.12-2025

¶32

BETWEEN

¶33

Aytha Sridhar, S/o. Rajamallu, Rl/o.Mancherial District.

¶34

.. . Petitioner

¶35

AND

¶36

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

¶37

Bhadradri Kothagudem District & 5 others.

¶38

: . .. Respondents

¶39

ORDER:-

¶40

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 Rs.16,38,819/- together with interest @24Yo.

¶41

¶42

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.

NBK,J w_37669-m25

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 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.

{

NBK,J Wp_37669_m25

\ \

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.

¶55

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

¶56

)

¶57

¶58

t
NBK,J
Wp_37669-2025

¶59

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.

¶60

ln view of the above discussion, the Writ petition is disposed of

¶61

with the following directions:-

¶62

(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;

¶63

(ii) The respondents shall release the remaining pending bills to the petitioner on or before 24.12.2025 and continue the contract.

¶64

(iii) The impugned proceedings dated 22.07-2025 is setaside to the extent indicated above.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/. . PONNA KRISHNA
S TANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
ECTION OFFICER
To a
1. The C_h_airman and Managing Director, Sinqareni fles Company Limited,
(A . GOVERNMENT cbrr,r"enNvlq 'i;iffi;j Collieries, Bhadradri-
Kothagudem District.

¶67

The Director (personner Administration and werfare), singareni - coilieries ^^{9gmpqlyt-td, p.O KothaguOem,Ahidiidri *orriiroeriiDistri'ct.}

¶68

The Director (ooeratiois), qinseleni C;i6ril 6;;;;y Ltd., p.o _^{Kgthagudem BnaoiaoriXotn'dqudefi} biii,t"tl-"'-"'

¶69

1[iai;n"g$r,l"r"J"HsgHBa]ll,itcorrieriescompanvLtdpo 5. The General Manager, llvtateiiat pr;.cur1;;t)-d;; : iF;^{p:5'ftiirJtlo1'#'bn"aradriKothasude,} o,",r,|f'"n' collieries companv o. I ne Generat Manaoer. I\rlanuguru Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., p.O _^{Kothas_udem,Man us]urue r,io} riiiixoihisl-d6;6i"tn"t. I. 9n"^{CC to SRtnlt. 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

¶70

& 9. Two CD CopiesloPUcl MP BS

/ t

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/1 212025

ORDER

WP.No.37669 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION I WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

\
1,h
b <br>

Aytha Sridhar, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aytha Sridhar, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

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

Vikash Kumar Jain Vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner

Rudrakshalamatam Dilip Kumar, Vs Union of India

Bijay Kumar Pandey Vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner

Manoj Jeekuri Vs Union of India

Venkata Bhaskar Rao Chelamala Vs The Union Of India

Sri. Anumulapalli Harikishan, Vs Mr. Sudhakar Rao