Disposed

M/S.Bandhav Minerals & 32 Others v. Secretary, Aperc.,& 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2024WP/36894/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged the Electricity Regulatory Commission's orders levying FSA charges for the first quarter of 2010-11. Following an earlier order in W.P.No.19359/2012, the Court directed non-enforcement of the FSA orders till disposal of related Supreme Court SLPs, with adjustment of collected charges in future bills.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S.Bandhav Minerals & 32 Others Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

::1::

¶2

APHC010012222012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3329]

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

W.P.No.36896/2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Sri Jyothi Granites & 76 Ors. and Others

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

Secy Aprc Hyd 5 Ors and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

W.P.No.36894/2012

¶15

Between:

¶16

M/s. Bandhav Minerals & 32 ...PETITIONER(S) Others and Others

¶17

AND

¶18

Secretary Aperc 3 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶20

THOTA SUNEETHA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

O MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶23

Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL

¶24

::2::

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION Nos. 36896 & 36894 of 2012

¶27

This Court made the following

¶28

COMMON ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the Respondent No.1 are illegal and liable to be set aside. Since the relief claimed in two Writ Petitions is identical, this Court is inclined to pass a common order in the two Writ Petitions. The two writ petitions seeks the following reliefs:

¶30

“..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the orders dt: 20.09.2012 in O.P.No.28/2012 passed by the Commission the 1^st Respondent as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and consequently declare that the Respondents 2 to 4 are not entitled to levy and collect FSA Charges and pass ….”

¶31

2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that, under similar facts and circumstances, this Court had passed an order vide in W.P.No.19359/2012, dated 31.07.2012 and they requested that similar orders be passed in the present writ petitions.

¶32

::3::

¶33

3. Upon perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Court dated 31.07.2012 in W.P.No.19359/2012, this Court came to a conclusion that the said order is squarely applicable to the present writ petitions. In accordance with the directions issued by this Court vide in W.P.No.19359/2012, dated 31.07.2012, these two writ petitions are liable to be disposed of on the following terms:

¶34

The orders dated 20.09.2012 of the Commission pertaining to the FSA for the 1^st Quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 shall not be enforced on any of the consumers of the four DISCOMs, till disposal of the SLPs pending before the Supreme Court.

¶35

The enforceability or otherwise of the orders of the commissions for the 1^st quarter of the financial year 20102011 shall depend on the result of the SLPs.

¶36

In the event of the Supreme Court confirms the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.09.2012, the FSA for the 1^st quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 will become unenforceable. In a converse situation, the Petitioners shall be entitled to question the orders of the Commission in respect of both the financial years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

¶37

::4::

¶38

If any of the DISCOMs have collected the FSA for the first quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 from any consumers, including the petitioners, they shall adjust the same in the future electricity bills immediately falling due. This adjustment shall also be subject to the outcome of the SLPs pending before the Supreme Court.

¶39

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶41

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶42

Dt: 18.12.2024 Krk

¶43

::5::

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶45

299

¶46

W.P.No.36896 & 36894 of 2012

¶47

18 . 12.2024 krk

M/S.Bandhav Minerals & 32 Others v. Secretary, Aperc.,& 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S.Bandhav Minerals & 32 Others v. Secretary, Aperc.,& 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhineni Praveen Kumar Vs the District Public Transport Officer

Gundoboinan Koti Surya Prabha Vs Union of India

Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Vs Sri. Sasi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.

M/S. Sri Jyothi Granites & 76 Ors. Vs Secy., Aprc, Hyd. & 5 Ors.

The Water User Association No 1 Vs Sri Shamsher Singh Rawat

D Srinivasa Rao Vs Sri S.S.Rawat IAS