Petitioners challenged orders regarding fuel surcharge adjustments by the APERC. The Court held the writ petition was infructuous as the cause no longer survived, dismissing it without costs.
Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
N
-Cl
33
\a
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT^'
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 37080 OF 2012
Between:
p
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order if direction more particularly one in the nature of Wirt of Mandamus declaring.
0
(a) The orders of the first respondent in OP Nos 64 to 67 of 2012 dated 02-11-2012 as illegal and unjust arbitrary andvolatileoffundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,19,21 and 300A oftheconstitutionof India and volatile of principles of natural justiceandconsequentlytoset aside the same
(b) The action of the respondents collecting the fuel surcharge adjustment charges for April 2012 to June 2012 as pertheordersoffirst respondent in O.P.Nos 64 to 67 of 2012 dated 02-11-2012asillegaland arbitrary . and pass
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fWPMP. NO: 47040 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased Stay the collection of fuel surcharge adjustmentchargesforthe month of April 2012 to June 2012 by the respondentsbasingtheorderof first respondents in O.P.Nos 64 to 67 of 2012 dated02-11-2012
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. K V UPENDRA GUPTA
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI V R REDDY KOWURI SCFOR
APCPDCL
The Court made the following:ORDER
APHC010073502012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY .THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 37080/2012
Between:
M/s.venkata Sai Boiled & Raw Rice Mill Prakasam Dist &14 ...PETITIONER(S) Ot and Others
AND
Chairman Aperc Hyd 3 Ot and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petltioner(S):
1.KVUPENDRA GUPTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2.V R REDDY KOWURI (SC FOR APCPDCL)
The Court made the following:
■#
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 37080/2012
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearnedcounselfor
the respondents.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the present WritPetitiondoesnotsurvive and no further adjudication is necessary in the presentWritPetition.Therefore the Writ Petition becomes infructuous.
Recording the said submission, Writ Petition is dismissedasinfructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Sd/- J SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
APCPDCL High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC]
BHB
s
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.37080of2012
I 04A«?0?5 I
^ ^ Current Section . ^
on*’"
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives given that the underlying subject matter no longer exists.
M/s. Venkata Sai Boiled & Raw Rice Mill and Others
Chairman APERC and Others
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
