Allowed

M/S. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No. Hdn 1077), v. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

Telangana HC3 Jun 2013WP/15500/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, directing the respondent utility to restore power supply upon deposit of 50% of the disputed demand and to consider the petitioner's pending objections for a final determination of penalties and disconnects. WMP No.18788 of 2013 stands closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit 50% of due amount; respondents directed to restore power supply and consider pending objections on merits.

M/S. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15500 of 2013

¶3

Date: June 03, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No.HDN 1077), H.No.11-13-173/23, Zinkalawada, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Partner K.Rajashekar S/o. K.P.Kumar, aged about 40 years.

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Rep by Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad North, Hyderabad – 500 004 and another. …Respondents

¶9

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.15500 of 2013

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner concern is aggrieved by the demand notices issued by the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APCPDCL) for the months of September 2012 to April 2013 levying penalties relatable to the restriction and control measures introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner concern that without considering its objections filed on 26-04-2013, the APCPDCL disconnected its power supply. The main objection of the petitioner concern is that the APCPDCL levied penalties upon it at

¶15

six times the regular charges which would be applicable to excess consumption during peak hours. The petitioner concern asserts that its excess consumption is not relatable to peak hours and it was therefore liable to be penalised only at three times the normal charges. This objection was specifically raised by the petitioner concern in its objections dated 26-04-2013.

¶16

Admittedly, the APCPDCL has not yet passed orders on the petitioner concern’s objections dated 26-04-2013. Without doing so, it appears that the APCPDCL straightaway resorted to disconnection of power supply to the petitioner concern. Such action from a State instrumentality cannot be countenanced by this Court. Once the petitioner concern raised objections as to the action proposed to be taken against it, the APCPDCL was bound to give due consideration to these objections before proceeding further.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the APCPDCL to restore power supply to the petitioner concern upon the petitioner concern depositing 50% of the amount due under the impugned demand notices. The APCPDCL shall thereupon consider the petitioner’s objections dated 26-04-2013 on merits and in accordance with the rules. The petitioner concern may also be afforded an opportunity of hearing, if necessary. The balance amount due under the impugned demand notices shall abide by the decision of the APCPDCL upon consideration of the petitioner concern’s objections dated 26-04-2013. Any amounts already paid by the petitioner concern pursuant to the impugned notices shall be adjusted against the amount due under this order. W.P.M.P. No.18788 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No costs.

¶18

________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶19

Date: June 03, 2013. Grk/jsk

¶20

Note:

¶21

Furnish CC tomorrow. b/o grk/jsk HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.15500 of 2013

¶23

Date: June 03, 2013

¶24

Grk/jsk

M/S. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No. Hdn 1077), v. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No. Hdn 1077), v. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

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

Mannuru Moula Saheb, S/o Peeru Saheb. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by

Sri Daggupalli Saibaba, Vs Sub-Registrar

Smt.Narisetti Vasundhara Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by the Principal

Pasuparthi Jayaram, s/o P. Balaram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Commissioner

N. Sinivasulu Naidu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

A. Sidda Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh