This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging a demand of ₹1,52,310/- as illegal and arbitrary under the Electricity Act. The court notes interim directions barred the demand but finds the petition infructuous as Standing Counsel stated no CC charges survive or are pending.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9617 OF 2012
Between:
M/s. Omkar Industries (SC No. 14221005722), rep. by its Partner Y SalirGurtur ...PETITIONER
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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the first respondent letter Lr.No.AAO/Sub-ERO/PDRL/JAO/NS/BS/D.No.338/11 dt. 17/12/11 and the directions there in as with out power jurisdiction and as arbitrary violative of the principals of natural justice irrational unreasonable and illegal and to set aside the same and demand made by the first respondent as arbitrary and Illegal and also to declare it is against the section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 and to adjust the amount Rs.50,000/- which is collected in month of February 2012 C.C.Bill in feature bill of the petitioner.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 12166 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent or any oneactingfororunderthem to give connection forthwith and not collect the amountasperAuditslipNo. 21 and impugned order Lr.No. AAO/SubERO/PDR/JAO/NS/BS/D.No.338/11 dtd. 17-12-2011 Rs.1,52,310/- pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such otherorderorordersdeem fit and proper.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1891 OF 2016)
Between:
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND
M/s. Omkar Industries (SC No.14221005722), rep. by its Partner Y. Kasivishwanadam S/o. Venkateshwarulu, aged 48 Years, Guntur Road, Piduguralla, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders grated in dated 04.04.2012inWPMPNO. 12166 of 2012 in WP No. 9617 of 2012.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. V. UPENDRA GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.V. SATISH, (SC FORAPSPDCL)
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010071992012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9617/2012
Between:
M/s. Omkar Industries (sc No.14221005722) ...PETITIONER
AND
The Senior Accounts Officer Operation Circle and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KVUPENDRA GUPTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 .V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
2.JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI
3.JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL)
The Court made the following:
- The present Writ Petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the first respondent letter No.AA/0 Sub-ERO/PDR/JAO/NS/BS/D.No.338/1 1, dated 17-12-2011, as illegal. In the impugned, the respondentdemandedtheamount of Rs.1,52,310/- towards the shortfall amount. At thetime of admission this Court was issued interim order directing the respondents to restore the power
supply to the petitioner’s premises through S.C.No.5722,andnottodemand Rs.1,52,310/- as per the impugned order, which is clearlybarredbylimitation under Section 56(2) of the A.P. Electricity Act, 2003.Pursuanttotheinterim directions, the electrical service was restored,
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shallstandclosed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFl ASSlSTANTjREGlSTRAR SEcfttWoFFlCER
To
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED;22/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.9617 of 2012
g 2 6 DEC 20211 %
^ . Current section
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCUTOUS WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the demand of Rs.1,52,310/- illegal and restore power supply.
Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the A.P. Electricity Act, 2003.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Omkar Industries
The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
The Assistants Accounts, Electricity Revenue Office, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
