M/S. Sonali Castings Hyd PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh. The Court granted this permission and accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The interim application, if any, was also closed. The Court explicitly stated that there would be no order as to costs. The specific issues raised by the petitioner regarding the illegality of clause 3 of the proceeding and the consideration of their applications were not adjudicated upon due to the withdrawal of the petition. The ratio decidendi is that a party can withdraw their petition and seek liberty to file afresh, which the Court may grant.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sonali Castings (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a proceeding issued by the third respondent, the Zonal Manager of Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC), dated July 23, 2020. Specifically, the petitioner sought to declare clause 3 of this proceeding as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking a direction for the third respondent to consider their applications dated July 18, 2019, and August 7, 2019, for sub-divisional charges along with GST amounting to Rs. 2,85,518.18, and to allow the sub-division of the plot pending the disposal of the writ petition. The respondents include the State of Telangana and TSIIC.

Key Issues

1. Whether clause 3 of the letter dated July 23, 2020, issued by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, contrary to law, and against the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have their applications dated July 18, 2019, and August 7, 2019, considered as per the norms prevailing in 2019 and to pay sub-divisional charges along with GST of Rs. 2,85,518.18, as sought in the interim application? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that clause 3 of the impugned proceeding is illegal and arbitrary. They also sought directions to consider their applications for plot sub-division and payment of charges as per 2019 norms. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the petitioner sought directions against the third respondent, who is part of TSIIC, a State entity.