AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sureshwar Thakur, J
Through, the instant writ petition, the petitioner company seeks quashing of Annexure P-3, and, of Annexure P-15. Through, the afore annexures, the response, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, to, an advertisement, borne in Annexure P-1, was, rejected, on anvil (i) qua, upon, evident lack of satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, condition No.5 borne therein, and, which stands extracted hereinafter, and, with candid echoings borne therein, qua with the respondent(s), hence after, verification rather detecting, vis-a-vis, the self identified projects, by the aspirant concerned, as embodied in Annexure P-1, hence, overlapping, the, already allotted site(s) including site(s) allotted to the HPSEB. (ii) thereupon, his/their responses rather being amenable for rejection.
Condition No.5, borne in Annexure P-1, reads as under:-
"5. The site being advertised are tentative and are subject to verification from HPSEB. The IPPs are advised to visit the site personally before apply for a particular site to ensure that applied site is fee from encumbrances and does not overlap with already allotted sites, including allotted sites of HPSEB."
The afore communication(s) borne in Annexure P-3, in respect whereof, an order qua its being set aside, is, prayed, stood reiterated, in, Annexure P-15.
The writ petition was contested by the replying respondent, and, in the reply furnished, by the contesting respondent(s) to the writ petition, it rather disclosed, on affidavit, that, the site identified, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, being unviable, on account, of another scheme being in operation, by the HPSEB, also, it occurring at an elevation, bearing compatibility, vis-a-vis, the elevation range, of, the project, as, aspired to be set up, by, the petitioner/entrepreneur company.
On the afore ground meted in the reply, to the writ petition, furnished by the contesting respondent(s), (i) the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/entrepreneur company, has made a vehement submission, before this court, that, the afore purported ground, of, unviability of the project identified, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, in response, to Annexure P-1, (ii) in latter Annexure whereof, the apposite advertisement, hence stands embodied, yet, cannot, handicap the petitioner/entrepreneur company, to, operate, the project concerned, as, any adverse financial repercussions, of the scheme, as proposed to be set up, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, would boomerang, only upon, it, and, hence, the afore ground being consequently meritless.
Be that as it may, the afore submission, though, appears to be simplistic, yet, solitarily thereupon it cannot be concluded, that the petitioner/entrepreneur company's aspiration, being not amenable for being stalled or frustrated, as the imperative precedent condition(s), for accepting or rejecting, the communications, respectively borne in Annexure P-3, and, in Anenxure P-15, are/is enshrined in condition No.5, embodied in Annexure P-1, condition whereof stands extracted herienabove, (i) and, upon evident material existing on record, that, in consonance therewith, the afore communications, are rendered, thereupon, this Court rather would proceed to decline, the, espoused relief, to the petitioner/entrepreneur company. The afore advertisement borne in Annexure P-1, was issued, on 5.2.2007, (ii) and, hereafter it has to be adjudged, whether in contemporaneity therewith, the afore extracted imperative condition No.4, rather begetting satiation. For determining, the afore factum probandum, an allusion, to Annexure R-1, issued on 7.7.2007, hence, in close contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the issuance of Annexure P-1, is, a dire necessity, (iii) and, when therewith is appended, a list, wherein, the site wherat, the, project/scheme, as, pioneered/flagshipped, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, hence exists, at serial No.20, (ii) and, when against the afore serialized scheme, as, appended with annexure R-1, there is/are reflections qua a scheme of the HPSEB, already existing thereat, (iv) rather begets, the, requsite effect qua hence condition No.5, as, embodied in Annexure P-1, visibly therethrough rather begetting apt satiation, (v) and, the inevitable sequel therefrom, is qua, the rejections, embodied in Annexure P-3, and, in Annexure P-15, vis-a-vis, the scheme proposed to be pioneered, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, hence, acquiring an aura of validation.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/entrepreneur company, also has relied upon, Annexure P-12, for ripping apart the tenacity, of, the afore disclosures, occurring in the list appended, with Annexure R-1, (a) and, has strived to draw leverage therefrom, necessarily from, a condition embodied therein, qua the Director (Projects), HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla, echoing his no objection, if the petitioner/entrepreneur company, is considered, for allotment, of, scheme, in, Chobu Gwal Shep. However, in making the afore submission, the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner/entrepreneur company, has read it, in, a piecemeal manner, and, has not the paid adequate attention, to the preceding paragraph borne therein, (b) wherein, there is a visible display qua, an, already operating scheme of the HPSEB, being functional, at the site proposed, by the petitioner/entrepreneur company, for the latter, hence, thereat rather pioneering its project, as a self identified project, in pursuance to Annexure P-1, and, also it rather bearing commonality,, and, similarity, for all practical purposes, vis-a-vis, the project proposed to be pioneered, by the petitioner company, (ii) and, when therefrom, rather satiation is meted, vis-a-vis, condition No.5, wherein, a right is vested in the respondents concerned, to, upon, the afore displays rather making their upsurgings, and, hence thereupon, the site identified by the petitioner, being, amenable for rejection. If the paragraph preceding the paragraph relied, upon, by the petitioner, is, read in the afore manner, and, whereupon, hence, it begets satiation, vis-a- vis, condition No.5, (iii) besides when it is issued much subsequently to the preparation, or the drawing of Annexure R-1, and, besides, with Annexure R-1 rather bearing contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, issuance of Annexure P-1, (iv) thereupon, even if, assumingly, if any, benefit is strived to be drawn by the petitioner, from, the last paragraph, occurring in Annexure P-12, rather renders the afore endeavour to stand blunted, by the throughout prevalence, and, omnibus clout, of, condition No.5, borne in Annexure P-1, and, when, the, afore condition No.5 stands meted satiation, and, when it over powers, reflection(s), if any, holding leanings, vis-a-vis, the petitioner/entrepreneur company, thereupon, the afore leanings are of no force, and, are to be concluded hence to be wholly rudderless.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.