Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, K.LAKSHMAN, JJ.
M/s Agni Aviation Consultants and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana represented by Secretary AH & RSAD Secretariat Hyderabad and others - Respondents
W.P.NO.1135 OF 2016
Decided On : 21-04-2020
Partnership Firm - Section 60 - A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 - 1st petitioner is a partnership Firm engaged in the business of aviation, power, water-related projects of which the 2nd petitioner is the authorized representative/partner – Held, The Special Government Pleader could not place any material before this Court to substantiate his plea that Cloud Seeding done in a particular area will result in rainfall only in that area, that the clouds would not move with the wind, and result in increased rainfall in a different district - We reject this contention because the Cloud Seeding operations would be done in the clouds hovering over the area covered by the Indian subcontinent in the districts falling in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh which are mentioned in the contracts awarded to the 1st petitioner, but the cloud movement would depend upon wind direction, and it cannot be said with any certainty that Cloud Seeding operations done over a particular district, which now falls in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, did not benefit the new State of Telangana by resulting in rain in the neighbouring districts in the State of Telangana. - Section 60 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 deals with contracts which had been entered into by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and the liability under such contracts to the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Writ Petition is allowed.
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner is a partnership Firm engaged in the business of aviation, power, water-related projects of which the 2nd petitioner is the authorized representative/partner - Petitioner had expertise in cloud-seeding operations where aircraft, radar and other equipment and personnel would be deployed to increase rainfall over the target area and conduct research studies for scientific purposes of the cloud physics of the region - In the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, there were certain rainfall deficit districts where drought conditions were found to exist constantly causing hardship to farmers.
Finding of the Court:
A curious contention was raised by the Special Government Pleader for the State of Telangana that most of the Districts in which the contract for Cloud Seeding was entrusted were located in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh after the bifurcation of the composite State into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014, and therefore, the bulk of the liability, if not, the entire liability for making payment to the dues of the petitioners for Cloud Seeding operations for 2007, 2008 and 2009, should be fastened only on the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh - The Special Government Pleader could not place any material before this Court to substantiate his plea that Cloud Seeding done in a particular area will result in rainfall only in that area, that the clouds would not move with the wind, and result in increased rainfall in a different district - We reject this contention because the Cloud Seeding operations would be done in the clouds hovering over the area covered by the Indian subcontinent in the districts falling in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh which are mentioned in the contracts awarded to the 1st petitioner, but the cloud movement would depend upon wind direction, and it cannot be said with any certainty that Cloud Seeding operations done over a particular district, which now falls in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, did not benefit the new State of Telangana by resulting in rain in the neighbouring districts in the State of Telangana. - Section 60 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 deals with contracts which had been entered into by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and the liability under such contracts to the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
Result: Writ Petition is allowed
ORDER :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
The 1st petitioner is a partnership Firm engaged in the business of aviation, power, water-related projects of which the 2nd petitioner is the authorized representative/partner.
2. The 1st petitioner had expertise in cloud-seeding operations where aircraft, radar and other equipment and personnel would be deployed to increase rainfall over the target area and conduct research studies for scientific purposes of the cloud physics of the region.
Before bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 2.6.2014
3. In the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, there were certain rainfall deficit districts where drought conditions were found to exist constantly causing hardship to farmers.
4. After studies by two expert committees constituted by it vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dt.10-1-2006 and G.O.Ms.No.1 dt.9-1-2007, the then State of Andhra Pradesh came to the conclusion that Cloud Seeding technology was not only scientific, but is also a proven technology and an effective weapon to fight recurring droughts, and that results showed that it enhances the rainfall to the tune of 15% on an average, in public interest, decided to adopt the same to augment the rainfall in these areas. It proposed to conduct Cloud Seeding operations for 120 days each year from 2007.
5. The Centre for Atmospheric Sciences and Weather Modification (Cloud Seeding) Technologies, the Jawaharlal Technological University, Hyderabad (3rd respondent) was roped in by the State as a nodal agency to carry out these operations.
6. It is not in dispute that directives were issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to which the 3rd respondent’s governing authority elected to pursue the Cloud Seeding program, with the primary objective of increasing rainfall over a target area in a safe and efficient manner and also to conduct research studies for scientific studies of the cloud physics of the region; and the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had, through a tender Committee had selected the 1st petitioner to conduct the precipitation enhancement program.
7. Thus there is not even an iota of doubt that there is a clear public law element involved in the Cloud Seeding operations to be done by the 1st petitioner and public interest would greatly stand to benefit if they were done.
The first contract dt.4.7.2007
8. On 19.06.2007, the then undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (3rd respondent), issued a tender notification for ‘Cloud-Seeding Operations’.
9. The 1st petitioner submitted bid and deposited earnest money of Rs.50 lakhs.
10. A Committee constituted for the said purpose selected the 1st petitioner Firm and after due deliberations and negotiations, a contract was signed on 04.07.2007 by the 3rd respondent with the 1st petitioner for contract value Rs.20.79 crores.
11. The Cloud Seeding Operation were to be taken in 10 districts – Anantapur, Kadapa, Chittoor, Nellore, Guntur, Kurnool, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda and Ranga Reddy Districts. Clause 3.3. of the contract set out the schedule of payments.
12. For the Cloud Seeding operations done by the 1st petitioner in 2007, the then State of Andhra Pradesh paid the 1st petitioner certain amounts leaving a balance of Rs.69,13,956/-.
The 2nd contract dt.25.7.2008
13. In 2008 also, the 3rd respondent-University issued another tender notification on 03.06.2008 for Cloud Seeding operations on behalf of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st petitioner submitted its bid along with E.M.D. of Rs.30 lakhs on 18.06.2008.
14. Initially the tender notification was cancelled by G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.21.07.2008, but later a fresh contract was awarded to the 1st petitioner by the 3rd respondent on 25.07.2008 for Cloud Seeding operations to be taken up in 12 districts, i.e, Anantapur, Kadapa, Chittoor, Nellore, Guntur, Kurnool, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Ran
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
