Allowed

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, v. The Central Power Distribution Company of

Telangana HC5 Dec 2012WP/33265/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging an order refusing to restore a petitioner's surrendered contracted maximum demand. The High Court quashed the impugned order, held that suspension on new loads does not bar restoration of surrendered loads, and directed release of 2,500 KVA without insisting on development charges.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing restoration of 2,500 KVA is quashed and the respondent is directed to process the representation for restoration within two weeks without insisting for payment of developme

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, Vs The Central Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.33265 of 2012

¶2

Date: 5 December 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Order:

¶10

Petitioner is a Limited Company which is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. For the purpose of running its unit, it had obtained HT power supply from the erstwhile APSEB, presently A.P. Transco. Petitioner availed contracted maximum demand of 16,500 KVA as and when it was required from the year 1985 onwards upto the year 2004. Out of the said same, petitioner surrendered 1,500 KVA in March, 2006 and 1,000 KVA in November, 2009. Vide letter dated 10.08.2011, petitioner requested to restore the load with

¶11

contracted maximum demand of 2,500 KVA. On such letter, the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 is passed vide Lr.No.CGM(Coml)/SE(C)/ADE-I/D.No.2245/12 refusing to restore contracted maximum demand as requested by the petitioner.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that there is absolutely no reason or justification in not restoring 2,500 KVA which was surrendered by it in two phases.

¶13

Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents-APCPDCL.

¶14

Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to the proceedings dated 01.11.2012 issued by the

¶15

A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. The said proceedings are issued approving Restriction and Control (R&C) measures proposed by the respondent-Company. As per clause 19(d) of the said proposals, the Distribution Licensees shall not release new additional loads for the existing services till the restrictions are removed. Further, it is stated that de-rated demand can be restored to original capacity on a request from the consumer.

¶16

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Ranga Reddy North Circle, Secunderabad, has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In

¶17

the counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner had a contracted maximum demand of 16,500 KVA by the end of 2004, but the petitioner has taken 9,700 KVA without payment of required development charges. It is stated that, earlier, petitioner filed

¶18

W.P.Nos.601 of 2004 and W.P.No.25597 of 2005 for release of the contracted maximum demand of 3,200 KVA and 1,500 KVA, which were allowed and against the same, writ appeals are filed and pending consideration. Precisely, in the counter-affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that as the petitioner had taken 9,700 KVA without payment of required development charges, petitioner is not entitled for restoration of the earlier derated contracted maximum demand of 2,500 KVA because it has not paid required development charges.

¶19

It is not in dispute that petitioner had contracted maximum demand of 2,000 KVA initially in the year 1985, but time to time it was increased and by the end of the year 2004, it had a contracted maximum demand of 16,500 KVA. It is also not in dispute that petitioner surrendered in 1,500 KVA in March, 2006 and 1,000 KVA in November, 2009. Even as per the R & C proposals, approved by the A.P. Regulatory Commission, by

¶20

proceedings dated 01.11.2012, a clear distinction is made between the claims for new additional loads and for restoration of de-rated demands. Whereas as per clause 19(d) of the said proposals, prohibition is imposed on new additional loads for the existing services till the restrictions are removed, but, de-rated demand can be restored to original capacity on the request of the consumer. The only objection of the respondents is that petitioner did not pay the development charges for 9,000 KVA which was taken by it earlier. It is also clearly stated when petitioner filed W.P.Nos.601 of 2004 and W.P.No.25597 of 2005 questioning the demand for payment of development charges, for the aforesaid 9,700 KVA, the said writ petitions were allowed declaring that respondents are not entitled to collect any development charges as demanded. It is stated that writ appeal filed there-against is pending and no interim orders are passed in favour of the respondents.

¶21

When the petitioner is requesting restoration of 2,500 de-rated KVA, respondents cannot refuse to release the same on the ground that it has not paid development charges while taking 9,700 KVA. Insofar as development charges are concerned, the same was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petitions, in which the petitioner succeeded. Unless the order passed in the said

¶22

writ petitions is set aside in the writ appeal preferred by the respondents, respondents cannot insist for payment of such development charges for restoration of 2500 KVA which is surrendered by the petitioner in two different phases. As there is no other objection for release of the 2,500 de-rated KVA and further clause 19(d) of the proposals referred above permits restoration of de-rated demands, there is no reason or justification on the part of the respondents in refusing restoration of 2,500 KVA, as per the request of the petitioner.

¶23

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 passed vide Lr.No.CGM(Coml)/SE(C)/ADE-I/D.No.2245/12 is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.08.2012 afresh, for restoration of 2,500 de-rated KVA, without insisting for payment of development charges, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶24

Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP No.42336 of 2012 stands closed. No order as to costs.

¶25

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶26

5 December 2012 MRR

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, v. The Central Power Distribution Company of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, v. The Central Power Distribution Company of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jonnabhatla Anjaneyulu, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Depot

Smt. Ghanta Radha, Vs The Deputy Registrar /

Rachuri Srinivasulu, Vs The Joint Collector

U. Naga Raju Vs The District Collector.

M/s Minopharm Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Managing Director

M/s Kurnool Seeds Pvt. Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh