amongst the other participating industries requiring power other than APSEB. However, subsequent to the enforcement of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 (for short, ‘the Act, 1998’), a question arose as to whether the third respondent is required to obtain licence. It is to be noticed that the third respondent being a collective and captive generating company, no licence was required under the provisions of the erstwhile Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short, ‘the Act, 1910’) or the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act, 1948’). Therefore, it was contended that the same principle would apply to the Act, 1998. However, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, which was constituted under the Act, 1998, observed that the generating company has to take a licence, whereupon appeal filed against such proceedings was rejected by this Court on 18.06.2001. However, on further appeal, the Supreme Court of India considering these aspects, gave a final judgment on 23.03.2004 holding ultimately that no such licence is required. However, interpreting the very same judgment in respect of certain observations made therein, now the second respondent at the behest of first respondent, sought to revise the bills, imposing revised tariff for the allotment of the power from the unutilised pool. Therefore, it was submitted that having regard to the very scope and object as intended and also in view of the specific terms and conditions as contained, the question of imposing any such tariff or revising the bills, does not arise, especially when the energy as generated by the third respondent is only meant for the participating industries and there is no supply of energy to the outsider. It was further contended that every shareholder with the third respondent is entitled to make use of the energy exclusively for its own purposes. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 could not have possibly varied the bill and basically without notice and without even raising any dispute before the appropriate forum as provided for. Thus, the entire unilateral action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 is totally illegal. Further, it is also contended that none of the terms under the MoU, authorises any such levy to be made by the respondents 1 and 2 as against such allocation. Hence, the Writ Petitions.
