Disposed

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy v. The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC12 Feb 2009WP/8106/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order by APTRANSCO directing him to apply for separate power connections or merge services due to multiple units being in the same premises. The High Court held that without a finding on ownership, the restriction under Contract Clause 27 could not be applied. Disposing the petition, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respond

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner to be given a chance to apply afresh for power supply within eight weeks.

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradersh State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8106 of 2002

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy S/o Peda Rami Reddy Managing Partner of M/s Sri Ramalingeswara Para Boiling Unit Kuthukuluru Post, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its The Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, AP TRANSCO-EPDCL, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram Post, East Godavari District.

¶10

2 The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its The Chairman cum Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate order, Writ or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by directing the Respondents release power supply to his rice mill, in the name of M/s Sri Ramalingeswara Para Boiled Rice Mill, at Kuthukuluru Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, under Low Tension power supply industrial category-III by duly observing the requisite departmental formalities on the ground that the rice mill of the petitioner is a distinct and a separate registered partnarship firm and since the conditions laid down under clause 27 of the terms and conditions of power supply are not contravered by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARASIMHA RAO

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO : 8106 of 2002

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein is the Managing Partner of M/S.Sri Ramalingeswara Para Boiling Unit at Kothukuluru, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District. When the petitioner made an application for L.T. power supply under Category.III(A) for a load of 74 H.P for his paraboiling unit, the 1^st respondent-Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, Ramachandrapuram by letter dated.21-12-2001 informed the petitioner that he has to apply for HT supply connection duly merging three(3) services existing in the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Para Boiling Units in the same premises or he may apply for separate L.T connection on a different premises with total physical separation of the units with a compound wall etc. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2^nd respondent the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the conditions imposed by the 2^nd respondent are not in accordance with Clause.27 of the terms and conditions of supply. To substantiate the said contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Hemanth Fan Components Vs. Central Power Distribution [1] Co., of A.P Ltd. Hyderabad and Others( ) .

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In Hemanth Fan Components case (supra) this Court having considered the purport of Clause.27 of the terms and conditions of supply held as under:-

¶22

“ It is therefore evident that the discretion conferred on the

¶23

respondents is not in absolute terms but is hedged in with circumstances, existence of which as a condition precedent alone will ennure to legitimize the exercise of such discretion. One of such conditions precedent is that the separate establishments should not only be situate within a single premises but should also be owned or leased by the same person apart from requiring electricity for purposes covered under the same category of tariff.”

¶24

It is not in dispute that all the units are located in the same premises. However, the petitioner disputes the claim of the respondents that all the three (3) units are owned by the same person. Apparently, no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents on that issue and no finding as such has been recorded. As held by this Court in Hemanth Fan Components case, in the absence of a finding to that effect the power under Clause.27 cannot be exercised.

¶25

Accordingly following the above decision the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in terms of the ratio laid down in Hemanth Fan Components case (supra) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.

¶26

_______________ G. ROHINI, J.

¶27

*Dt.12.02.2009 Tsnr

¶28

[1] 2001(2) L.S. 186

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy v. The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy v. The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch.Venkat Rami Reddy, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd./

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, Vs The District Collector

Seelam Srinivasa Chakravarthi, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation

Andhra Pradesh State Ware Housing Corporation and other Vs State Ware Housing Corporation A.P.

Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari Vs The Suerintendent of Police, W.G.District, Eluru

Agadallanka Water Users Association Vs The Executive Engineer