IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4737 of 2000 Between: Vijayakrishna Power (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director P.Surapa Raju, S/o. P.S.N.Raju, R/o. Hyderabad Vijayakrishna Power (P.) Limited, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Managing Director, NEDCAP, Pigah Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manger, NEDCAP, Pigah Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 M/s. Chandana Power Project Private Limited, Rep. by its Ch.Srinivasa Raju, Road No.2, BanjaraHills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not allotting the location of Saraswathi Canal and Lower Maneru Head Regulation under Sri Ramsagar project for establishment of Mini Hydal Power plant as per the guidlines issued under G.O.Ms.No.149 Engergy (Poer-1) Department dt. 15.11.1995 and allotting the said location to the 3rd Respondent contrary to the above said guide lines as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and issue consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the allotment of above said location to the 3rd Respondent and allot the same to the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4737 of 2000 O R D E R: The petitioner though sought for a direction for allotment of location of Saraswathi canal and lower Manneru Head regulation under Sriram Sagar Project for establishment of mini hydel power plant as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.149 Energy (Power+1) Department dated 15.11.1995 in his favour by canceling allotment if any made in favour of the 3rd respondent, submits that in view of rejection of the application of the 3rd respondent, his application may be registered and considered in accordance with the orders of the Government issued from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government accorded approval in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 21.10.1992 to the then A.P.State Electricity Board for entrusting mini hydel schemes in the State to the private developers for construction and operation of the schemes subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions, and thereafter, revised guidelines have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 15.11.1995 for identification of the sites by developers themselves and to carry out the investigations and sites will be allotted on first come first serve basis. It is stated that the petitioner as a developer applied for the allotment of the mini hydel power plant at the location of (1) Saraswati canal and lower Mannaru Head Regulators under Sriram Sagar, (2) Gontuki-River near Tonam village & Bodarugadda near Mokhasa Dandigaru, Saluru Mandal, Vizianagaram District altogether 3 M.W. on 13.10.1999. The 2nd respondent vide letter dated 15.11.1999 stated that the application cannot be considered as it was not affixed with pay order having any date, accordingly returned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application dated 25.08.1999 as to know whether his application is registered as first come first serve basis or not. But, however, the 2nd respondent again issued a letter dated 29.12.1999 stating that the necessary documents are not enclosed along with the application. Pursuant to the said letter of the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.1999, it is stated that the petitioner submitted a detailed project report, enclosing the necessary required documents vide his letter dated 13.01.2000. The perusal of the letter addressed by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 13.01.2000 shows that the detailed report has already submitted to the 2nd respondent on 29.12.1999 and required documents for registration of the petitioner application for Gomuki river and lower mannaru scheme are enclosed. The enclosed documents are certificate of company registration, Memorandum of articles, MOU on stamped paper Rs.100/-, index map, location map for the said tour locations, D.D. for Rs.5,000/-, Income tax returns, list of Directors etc. It is stated that the said application dated 13.01.2000 was not at all considered and thereafter several representations, reminders and legal notice were also issued, but no action has been taken and therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file this writ petition. A counter has been filed stating that the application of the petitioner received on 13.10.1999 could not be registered as the D.D. i.e. pay order is having any date and therefore it was returned on 15.11.1999 and in the meanwhile the application of the 3rd respondent was received on 08.11.1999 at Sl.No.131 and the same was registered. The application of the 3rd respondent was received as the petitioner failed to submit any documents by 31.08.1999. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the last date even according to the respondents to submit the documents is 31.08.1999, the question of receiving the application on 08.11.1999 by the 3rd respondent and registering the same ignoring the first application filed by the petitioner does not arise, more so, when the respondents have returned the same for rectification of the defects. As the defects were rectified, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner is not pending. It is further stated that the respondents themselves vide letter dated 29.12.1999 granted time to submit application along with relevant documents before 15.01.2000, failing which, it will be treated that the petitioner has no interest for registration of its application. It is stated that in response to the said letter dated 29.12.1999 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed a detailed application on 13.01.2000 within the stipulated time and admittedly the said application dated 13.01.2000 was not at all considered. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the application of the 3rd respondent was not considered and the same was cancelled vide letter dated 06.07.2000 and 17.02.2001 issued by the Administrative-cum-Chief Engineer, Sriram Sagar Project and he further stated that as per the revised guidelines of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 11.07.2007 without No Objection Certificates, the said locations cannot be approved. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per clause-5 of the afore said G.O., “No Objection Certificate” for the construction of Mini-Hydel Stations on major canals and major rivers viz.Krishna, Godavari and Pennar and on such other rivers as the Government may from time to time notify as restricted for the development of Mini Hydel Projects, should not be entertained, but there is no such restriction for construction of the Mini Hydel Stations along with Vagus and Streams subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Whether the two locations are the Streams or Vagus, I am not inclined to express any opinion as it is for the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the same. Having regard to the facts of the case, without expressing any opinion with regard to right of the petitioner to get his application registered for the location applied for by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the application as re-submitted by the petitioner on 13.01.2000, in accordance with the Government orders issued from time to time and pass appropriate orders thereon. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.08.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Managing Director, NEDCAP, Pigah Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manger, NEDCAP, Pigah Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3.2CCs to 4.2CD copies