Dismissed

Sai Bhaskar Irons Limited, v. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Telangana HC19 Nov 2018WP/2180/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an iron manufacturing company categorized under HT Cat-1, filed a writ petition seeking permission for additional power consumption during electricity restrictions. The Single Judge relied on a previous judgment (W.P.No.29621 of 2012) that upheld the Commission's regulatory power and denied similar relief to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. Additional CMD request denied.

Sai Bhaskar Irons Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2180 OF 2014

¶3

DATED :19.11.2018

¶4

Between :

¶5

Sri Bhaskar Irons Limited, (Steel Plant) Regd. Office at Plot No.73, Lane No.5, Road No.72, Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Factory At S.No.56, Nagarajupally Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasham District, Rep., by its Managing Director Sri Madala Chaitanya, S/o.Ratnagiri Babu, Aged about 30 yrs.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep., by its Secretary & others.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

This court made the following :

¶11

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.2180 OF 2014

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri for respondent No.1. None appeared for respondents 2 to 4.

¶16

Petitioner-company is involved in manufacturing of iron billets and iron rods of different sizes. It is a continuous process industry with heavy electricity and man power. It is categorized as HT Cat-1. Due to shortage of power, restrictions are imposed on consumption of electricity. The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission prescribed penal charges for non-compliance of restrictions and control measures. Having regard to the restrictions imposed, petitioner claims that he has applied for releasing of additional CMD of 2000 KVA. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.

¶17

The scope of Electricity Regulatory Commission in imposing restrictions and control measures, in imposing penal charges on violation of those restrictions and control measures, was considered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.29621 of 2012. Learned Single Judge upheld the power to impose such restrictions and control measures and levying of penal charges. However, learned Single Judge, granted relief to limited extent to seasonal industries.

¶18

¶19

Having regard to the judgment rendered in W.P.No.29621 of 2012, the prayer of the petitioner to grant additional CMD during the restrictions and control measures period cannot be granted.

¶20

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending

¶21

miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶23

19^th November, 2018 Rds

Sai Bhaskar Irons Limited, v. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Bhaskar Irons Limited, v. Andhra Pradesh Electricity 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

Narra Balamani , Sudha Vs The State of Telangana

S.V. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppala Kanakamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Vijaya Iron Foundry Private Ltd., (MDK-922) Vs Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd, Vs Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s.Mylan Laboratories Ltd,(Formerly known as Matrix Vs Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission