VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday dismissed two interlocutory applications filed by Navayuga Port Limited, seeking the suspension of Government Orders (GOs) cancelling the State’s agreement with the firm for the construction of Machilipatnam port.
Navayuga had filed one interlocutory application seeking a court directive to prevent the government from handing over the construction of the port to others. It also filed another application seeking a stay on GO 9, issued making Machilipatnam project from PPP to an EPC model.
A division bench comprising Justice C Praveen Kumar and Justice AV Ravindra Babu dismissed the applications and adjourned the hearing of another petition to December first week. Navayuga has challenged the verdict of a single judge in favour of the government, cancelling the agreement between the State and the firm.
The bench observed that the State government had issued a letter of award the project to the lowest bidder on the same day on which the single judge’s verdict came, and later, an agreement was signed. In view of that development, the petitioner’s request for an interim stay was rejected.
On GO 9 issued in 2021, the bench said Navayuga Ports could not challenge the decision changing port construction from PPP to EPC model. Further it was pointed out that with new model, the required land has come down to 830 acres. The single judge gave the verdict after considering every aspect, and hence GO 66 could not be stayed, the bench said.
Elaborating, the court observed that the 2008 agreement was clear about the project’s deadline. Navayuga was to show its financial resources in 12 months’ time. Further, there had been no progress in the project even after parcels of land were handed over.
The court observed that when the government tried to hand over 2,360 acres, Navayuga rejected it, demanding 5,324 acres. As per the 3.5 clause in the agreement, the land needed to be handed over in 30 years. However, the same was not challenged by the petitioner. The court also rejected the argument that the project was not taken up since the entire land was not handed over at a single go.
Referring to the agreement, the court pointed out the firm had failed to execute its responsibilities of showing its financial reserves. Further, it was noted that the government had offered 2,360.52 acres and another 519 acres of assigned lands, but was rejected.
It also found fault with petitioner’s argument that since the government had not given the land on time, it could not pledge the same to raise the finances required. The petitioner, in a letter to principal secretary (investments) in 2019 April, said that it had commenced the basic work and land procurement process had been expedited through MUDIA. But no work was taken up.