Kranthi Edifice (P) Limited, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE S.V.BHATT W RI T PETI TI ON No.5 4 of 2 0 1 7 ORDER:

Heard Mr. P. Venugopal for petitioner and Mr. Vinod Reddy for respondents 2 and 3.

2.

Petitioner prays for consideration and disposal of representation dated 31.12.2016 by respondents 2 and 3 in its right perspective and enable the petitioner to synchronize or commission the solar plant within the extended time.

3.

Mr. Vinod Reddy submits that timelines for performance are very specific in the case on hand and admittedly, petitioner has not adhered to the timelines stipulated for performance and commissioning of the project. However, he submits that these are matters for consideration before respondents and they need to examine the case.

4.

I have perused the reasons stated in the representation dated 31.12.2016. The grievance stated by petitioner is not singular. Therefore, the representation requires objective consideration by respondents 2 and 3. Hence, I am satisfied the writ petition can be disposed of by this order.

a) Petitioner is given liberty to resubmit representation dated 31.12.2016 by enclosing copy of this order within one week from today.

b) Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to examine the request of petitioner for extension of time for

commissioning the project in its right perspective and a decision is expeditiously taken.

c) Since direction is issued to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 31.12.2016, it is expected that the respondents do not, pending consideration of representation, initiate coercive steps in this behalf.

The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________ S. V. BHATT, J January 3, 2017 DSK