Dismissed

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

Telangana HC20 Dec 2013WA/1957/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ appeals challenging an interim order. The court chose not to interfere with the single judge's order directing the utility to allow power supply upon payment of 50% deposit and security, deferring the main issue for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

All writ appeals and pending miscellaneous petitions were dismissed; no order as to costs.

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, Vs The Central Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

Writ Appeal Nos.1951, 1955, 1957 & 1962 of 2013 Date: 20.12.2013

¶4

W.A.No.1951 of 2013:

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s Jeevaka Industries Ltd., (MDK 906) Nastipur village, Hatnoora Mandal, Medak district, rep. by its Director, Mr.Anil Agarmal

¶7

… Appellants

¶8

And:

¶9

The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶13

Writ Appeal Nos.1951, 1955, 1957 & 1962 of 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice G.Chandraiah)

¶14

This batch of writ appeals have been filed aggrieved by the interim orders passed in the batch of writ petitions. The subject matter arises under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Main writ petitions were filed seeking the following relief:

¶15

“To issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter No.SE/O/SAO/ JAO/HT/ACD/D.No.1530, dated 30.08.2013, of the 2^nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section 47(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and regulation 4(3) of the A.P. Regulatory Commission (Security Deposit) Regulation, 2004 and consequently set aside the same.”

¶16

2. In the impugned letter dated 30.08.2013, the Respondents-

¶17

APCPDCL has demanded for payment of consumption deposit. Along with the writ petitions, the petitioners filed WP MPs seeking direction to the respondents not to disconnect the petitioners’ power supply pursuant to the impugned letter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in this batch of WP MPs, the learned Single Judge has passed the following interim order:

¶18

“In the light of the interim orders passed in similar matters, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to disconnect power supply to the petitioner subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the amount demanded towards additional consumption deposit in cash and furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining 50% within four weeks from today.”

¶19

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present batch of writ appeals.

¶20

4. Sri D.V.Nagarjun Babu, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the issue involved is, providing of pre-paid meters by the respondents and the respondents shall not be entitled to demand any security deposit and taking action against the petitioners is contrary to the law. He submitted that in the similar matters, a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP MP No.15721 of 2009 in WP No.12174 of 2009 passed the following order.

¶21

“Whether compliance with the consumer’s request should depend upon the availability of pre-payment meters and the convenience of the distribution licensee or not is required to be decided in the writ petition. However, a prima facie consideration of the above mentioned provision shows that it is not permissible for the distribution licensee to insist on furnishing security if a consumer is prepared to take the supply through pre-payment meter. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner subject to it’s furnishing cash security equivalent to one month’s average consumption charges and bank guarantee for one more month’s consumption charges, within a period of four (4) weeks from today.”

¶22

The learned counsel submitted that similar interim order may be passed in the present batch of writ petitions.

¶23

5. On the other hand, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned standing

¶24

counsel for the respondents-APCPDCL, would submit that having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court prima-facie after satisfying the issue involved in the matter, granted conditional order directing the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners subject to the petitioners paying 50% of the amount demanded towards additional consumption deposit in cash and furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining 50% within four weeks from today. He submitted that the main controversy has to be gone into at the time of hearing of writ petition and the interim orders may not be interfered with.

¶25

6. The issue involved in this batch of cases is providing of prepaid meters in lieu of taking additional consumption deposit and the learned single Judge passed conditional order directing the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners subject to the petitioners paying 50% of the amount demanded towards additional consumption deposit in cash and furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining 50%.

¶26

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as the impugned order is only an interim order and the main issue has to be decided during the course of final hearing, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. We direct the Registry to post this batch of writ petitions for final hearing immediately after Pongal Vacation, 2014.

¶27

8. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this batch of writ appeals also shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶28

G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶29

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDARAM, J

¶30

Date: 20.12.2013

¶31

BSS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

M.Jaffer Saheb(Decd) Vs Commisioner of Incomje Tax Vijayawada

Comm of W.T. Hyderabad. Vs Trustees of Nizams Jewellery Trust Hyd

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Vs Nitin.I. Patel.

M/s. Radha Smelters Limited Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

M/s Jeevaka Industries Ltd., (MDK906) Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

The State Bank of India, Vs Sri. M. Ravi Kiran