Single bench dismissed three writ petitions challenging demand notices for consumption charges. It held petitioners could not unilaterally withhold payments pending official calculations ordered earlier in WP No.8444 of 2000, allowing them to challenge future notices.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.751, 6367 and 6496 of 2009
DATED: 19.03.2014
WP No.751 of 2009:
Between:
M/s Vinayak Steels Pvt. Ltd., Dharga Road, Kothur village Shadnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district, rep. by its Vice President
... Petitioner
And
The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Managing Director & others
… Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.751, 6367 and 6496 of 2009
COMMON ORDER:
These three writ petitions were filed challenging the notices issued by the respondents, including payment of consumption charges in respect of which, it appears, the petitioners deducted some amounts towards Fuel Cost Adjustment (FCA) on the ground that the respondents failed to implement the orders passed by this Court in WP No.8444 of 2000 & batch, dated 08.08.2008.
2. The present dispute, as well as the dispute that arose in the earlier batch of cases, relating to the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. This Court while disposing of WP No.8444 of 2000 and batch on 08.08.2008, directed the respondents to calculate the FCA according to the steps indicated therein. The demand notices issued earlier were set aside and the respondents were given liberty to issue fresh demand notices after working out the amounts as indicated in the said order. Even before the necessary calculations were made, the present writ petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging the communications issued by the respondents asking them to pay the consumption charges in full without deducting any amount towards fuel consumption charges, which were not calculated pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.08.2008.
3. Learned standing counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners unilaterally deducted the amounts even before calculations were made pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.08.2008 and with-held the consumption charges, which are legally payable by the petitioners. Learned standing counsel further submits that in respect of the subsequent years, the petitioners have been paying the consumption charges and during the relevant period, they with-held part of the consumption charges on the ground that they are entitled for refund of the fuel consumption charges collected in excess from the
petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, states that till today his clients have not received any demand notices pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.08.2008 and in the absence of the same, based on the decision of this Court, the petitioners made calculations and after deducting the excess paid amount amount towards fuel consumption charges, the regular amounts towards consumption charges were paid.
5. In the facts and circumstances, this Court cannot appreciate the action of the petitioners in making their own calculations, even though this Court in WP No.8444 of 2000 & batch dated 08.08.2008 directed the respondents to make calculations and determine whether any consumer is entitled for refund of the amounts or the respondents can demand the amounts payable by the consumers. The said exercise has to be done by the respondents, but the petitioners, on their own cannot unilaterally do the exercise and withhold the payments of the amounts due to the respondents. Though, learned standing counsel for the respondents, states that the calculations were made subsequently and demand notices were issued to the individual consumers, learned counsel for the petitioners states that they have not received any demand notices and if the respondents issued demand notices, they would take appropriate steps challenging the same.
6. In the circumstances, these three writ petitions are dismissed, however, giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the demand notices issued by the respondents pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP No.8444 of 2000 and batch dated 08.08.2008. The respondents are directed to re-issue copies of the demand notices to the petitioners in view of the allegation that they have not received the demand notices issued by the respondents earlier, within fifteen (15) days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in order to enable them to take appropriate steps, if they are aggrieved. Pending miscellaneous petitions in these writ petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
_________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 19.03.2014 BSS
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 4
WRIT PETITION Nos.751, 6367 & 6496 of 2009
Date: 19.03.2014
BSS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners could unilaterally deduct payment from consumption charges pending calculation of refund per court order.
Whether demand notices issued by respondents complied with earlier court orders on fuel cost adjustment calculations.
M/s Vinayak Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd.
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
