K:f !7? <3 t.'^' iCH SON'BLE SE- M/s R/& S Engineering (India) nivaie t-iiiiiieui [a ssuuoiaiary of Roberts & Schaefer Co., USA] duiy registered under the relevant provislons of the Companies Act, 1956 havlng ts office III Floor, Progressive Tower, 6-2-913/914, through its;EAecutive Dirsctor Shri L.S. Reddy, son of Late Jala Reddy, aged about 72 years, resldent of 409, Ramkrishna Tower, Nagarjuna Nagar, Hyderabad (AP) L.S. Reddy, son of late Jala Reddy, aged about 72 years, resident of 409, Ramkrishna Tower, iMagsrjuna Nagar & Executive Director of M/s R & S Engineering (India) Private Limited, i!! Floor, Progressive Tower. 6-2-913/914. i/^^.',»^.^^i^^f4 U»"<i^^/<-l^."/4 FA m r\iiairaiauau, nyaerauau, |nrj Union of India, through the oscreiary, iviinisiry OT 'i^oai, Dhaula Kuan, New' Delhl. 2. Government of India enterprlsej through its Chairman, Coa! Bhavv'an, 1, Netaii Subhash Road, Kolkata 3. iouth Eastern [A subsidiary Llmitedi through its Chairman laying Dlrector, office at Seepat Mai OUSll Reaistered lanarasntra Boaru, inrougn iis onairman, Maharashtra State Electriclty ioard, Vidyut Bhavan, Katol Raod, Nagpur (!VIS) Frit petition under Article 226 of th&<Constitution of India Shri B.P. Sharma, iearned counsel for petitioners. Ms. Sharmila Sinahai, learned Assistant usnsrai ror responasni NO.I . JF'f The following order of the Court was passed by 2. Heard learned counsel forthe parties on admission. ~he petitioners have filed this writ petition for the foii reliefs:- 7.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of idamus do issue commanding and directing the sspondent authorities to produce before this Hon'ble a!l the record pertaining to case of the petitioners for perusai of this Hon'ble Court. 7.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do quashing the impugned letter dated 19-12-2007 (Annexure P-30) belng arbitra.ry, iegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and violates the petitioners' fundamental & constitutlonal rights and thus not sustainable in iaw. 7.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to execute the relevant deeds as mentioned in the petition, so that the petitioners li< - Ki ,ii:!iii lr may be ab!e to' estabiish coal washery plant at Dipka on Buiid-Own-Operste princlple with a throughput capacity of 6.00 M.T of raw coal per annum over the subject land in the facts and drcumstances of.the case. 7.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus/appropriate writ do issue restraining the respondent authorities from creating any charge over the subject land or to use the subject iand for any other purpose then for establlshment of the coat washery over the subject land by the petitioners or in any way interfering with the rights of the petitioners to establlsh the coa! was'nery over the subject iand bein( the successful tenderer under the globai tender invited bythe respondents. 7.5 Any other reiief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circ-umstances of the case. 7.6 Cost of the petitlon may also be granted." 3. The petitioners in substance are seeking quashing of Annexure-P/30 dated 19-12-2007 which reads as Toliovi/s :- "This has reference to your letter dated 4th Januan/, 2007 on the above. This is to inform you eartier earmarked for the preparation ptant near Di sparable for such work that the site which was aforesaid proposed coal pka siding is no more ;ause in the Expansion At the same iocation CHP with silo is under construction. Apart from above, SECL has now decided not to allot any land for construction of new washery in their iease hoid area. iiil.dtju: 'herefore, vvith the lapse of time and chanoed situation, the aforesaid proposal to instaii a coal preparation piant at Dipka on 'BOO' basis is dropped. This is foryour kind informatlon." 4. The matter relates to insta'iation of a Coal Washery at Dipka. T'ne petitioners' entire ciaim is based on the 'Letter of intent' dated 19-04-1995. Admittedly, no agreement was executed between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3 in regard to the instaiiation of the Coal VVashery at DipKa. From the above quoted ietter Annexure-P/30, it is clearthat on account of non-availability of' spare iand near Dipka siding, the South Eastern Coalfields Limited had to take the declsion to drop the proposai to instail Coai 'Washery at Dipka. As no agreement was resDondents No. 2 & 3, ,'een the petitloners no legally enforceable right, in our opinion, was created in favour of the petltioners to seek the ions whfch are sought petitioners have suffere le petitioners in tnis v/rit petltlon. loss on account of the said act of respondents No. 2 & 3 in dropping the proposal of installation of the Coal Washery at Dipka, the petitioners' remedy iies in approaching the Civil Court for damages for the loss, if any, suffered bythem. 7. In the pecuiiar facts of the present case, the reliance or the Detitioners' counsel on the decisions in th.e cases of "Bharat subbu (^ Petroleum Corporatfon Limlted Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Ltd./' reported in 1 SCC - 503 and "Tata ofindia", reported in AiR SC -11, is ofno help. The writ petition, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismlssed summarily. _^_ __— Sd7- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Smha Judge r-'