When the special leave petitions were filed by the appellants, this Court initially on 27th August, 2010 made an ex parte order directing interim stay of the order of the Division Bench for a period of one month, subject to appellants making payment at the rate of Rs.90/ per metric tonne of fly ash to the first respondent.
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the impugned orders set aside the interim orders of the learned Single Judge, with an observation that pending finalisation of tenders, the first respondent Corporation may companysider supplying fly ash to the writ petitioners for use in their industry.
The learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the appellants have themselves made an offer of Rs.390/ per metric tonne or more in response to the tender numberice and, therefore, they cannot get fly ash at any lesser rate.
Subsequently the first respondent Corporation invited tenders in regard to the sale of fly ash and the cement companypanies challenged the numberice inviting tenders by filing writ petitions.
The appellants companytend that tenders companyld number be issued with respect to supply of fly ash from the same units with respect to which the appellants have subsisting agreements.
Memoranda of Understandings MOUs were executed between the first respondent Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited and cement companypanies who are the appellants herein for lifting of fly ash from its Thermal Plants.
The learned Single Judge had passed an interim order therein prohibiting finalization of tenders, on the ground that the appellants had been permitted to receive supply of fly ash even after termination of MOUs.
The effect of the order of the Division Bench is that the first respondent Corporation is number bound to supply fly ash to the appellants.
However, even after such termination, the first respondent permitted the cement companypanies to take 80 of the fly ash from two Thermal Units.
The said interim order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the first respondent Corporation by filing writ appeals.
Subsequently the first respondent Corporation terminated the MOUs alleging breach on the the part of the appellants.
Subsequently in other cases similar orders were passed.
The said writ petitions are pending.
Leave granted.
Various other grounds are also urged by the appellants.
