Allowed

M/s. Sri Venkata Narasimha Raju Rice Mill, v. Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission

Telangana HC4 Jan 2012WP/26121/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two Writ Petitions assailing the AP ERC's FSA determination for FY 2008-09, relying on a batch judgment allowing identical claims. Pending applications were disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed as per the batch judgment; miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous.

M/s. Sri Venkata Narasimha Raju Rice Mill, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.26121 AND 27648 of 2010

¶7

W.P.No.26121 of 2010

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Sri Venkata Narasimha Raju Rice Mill West Godavari District & others.

¶10

… Petitioners

¶11

And

¶12

A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad & others.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri R. Sudheer

¶15

Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P. Sriraghuram Counsel for respondents 2-5: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni

¶16

This Court made the following:

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶18

WRIT PETITION Nos. 26121 AND 27648 of 2010

¶19

COMMON ORDER:

¶20

These two Writ Petitions are filed assailing Order, dated 05-06-2010, of respondent No.1 whereby it has determined Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for the financial year 2008-2009. At the hearing, it has come out that a batch of Writ Petitions, filed raising identical issues and questioning the order of respondent No.1, which is impugned in these Writ Petitions, was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 29.07.2011 in India Cements Ltd. and another vs. Chairman, APSERC, Hyderabad and others^[1] .

¶21

A perusal of the judgment in the aforesaid batch of cases shows that the learned Judge set aside the impugned order of respondent No.1 with liberty to the DISCOMs to file applications afresh, claiming FSA, and directing respondent No.1 to consider and deicide the same in accordance with law, if and when such applications were filed.

¶22

Having regard to the above judgment, which applies in all fours to these cases, all these Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the said judgment and to the extent indicated therein.

¶23

As a sequel, all the miscellaneous applications pending in these Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶25

Date: 04.01.2012

¶26

¶27

[1] 2011 (5) ALT 188

M/s. Sri Venkata Narasimha Raju Rice Mill, v. Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Venkata Narasimha Raju Rice Mill, v. Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Borra Sathi Reddy Vs The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

Bismillah Oil Industries, Vs Sohail Traders, Yemmiganur, Rep by Proprietor

Prameshwari Enterprises, a Proprietary Concern, Vs M/s. Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kurva Nagamma

M/s.Coramandel Stampings and Stones Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary

Kum. Gajini Anusha, Vs Commissioner of Tribal Welfare