Dismissed¶33

M/s.Dhanekula Venkata Subbaiah Charitable Trust v. Southern Power Distribution company of Ap Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026WP/1078/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; petitioner absent on 02.03.2026 and 03.03.2026; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); penal charges Rs.11,23,401/-; APERC proceedings No./APERC/Secy/154/2013 dated 8.8.2013; R&C restrictions period; disconnection of power supply; coercive steps; Section 151 CPC interim applications closed; no order as to costs; Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd (APCPDCL); Vijayawada, Krishna District; Justice Ninala Jayasurya.

What did the court decide?

With no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 02.03.2026 and again on the day's hearing, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. ¶33

M/s.Dhanekula Venkata Subbaiah Charitable… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010644592014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3209]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 1078/2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S.DHANEKULA VENKATA SUBBAIAH CHARITABLE TRUST, (VJA 668) KANURU, VIJAYAWADA(M) KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN D.RAVINDRANATH TAGORE, S/O.VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGE 74 YEARS

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD.,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶14

SENIOR ACCOUNT OFFICER OPERATION, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION OF COMPANY OF AP LTD., VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

¶17

¶18

NJS,J W.P.NO.1078 OF 2014

¶19

High Court may be pleased toto issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents for not acting on petitioners representation dated 10.9.2013 and 11.12.2013 as arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and affect fundamental right of the petitioner Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constution of India and also direct the respondents to adjust 50% of the penal charges Rs.11,23,401/- paid by the petitioner in future consumption bills as per the directions of APERC in proceedings No./APERC/Secy/154/2013 dated 8.8.2013 and also direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps including disconnwection of power supply to the petitions unit and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 1228 OF 2014

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps including disconnect the power supply to the petitioner unit for adjusting the amount of 50% in Rs.11,23,401/- during R&C restrictions period pennal charges paid by the petitioner during R&C restrictions period in future consumption bills

¶22

IA NO: 4 OF 2014(WPMP 42989 OF 2014

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K V UPENDRA GUPTA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.P VINOD KUMAR

¶28

2.V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL)

¶29

¶30

NJS,J W.P.NO.1078 OF 2014

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶32

As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 02.03.2026, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption <for orders=.

¶33

Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as nonprosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

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

¶35

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶36

03.03.2026 LSP

M/s.Dhanekula Venkata Subbaiah Charitable Trust v. Southern Power Distribution company of Ap Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Dhanekula Venkata Subbaiah Charitable Trust v. Southern Power Distribution company of Ap Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Srr Hospitalities Pvt., Ltd., Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Sathi Nagi Reddy,E.G Dist Vs the a.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd E.G Dist & 2 Others

Sri Ganapathi Venkataramana Rice Mill, Vs The Govt. of A.P rep by a.P.Transco

Rongali mutyala Rao S/o Satyanarayana murthy Vs A.P. Electrical Licensing Board Mint Compound

K. Venkatapathi Raju Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Ltd., Operation

Sri Ramesh Raw & Boiled Rice Mill & 2 Others Vs Secretary,Aperc., Hyderabad & 2 Others