Allowed

Sole Prop, M/S Sangameswara Theatre, Guntur Dist v. Chairman Aperc, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Telangana HC6 Nov 2018WP/33976/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the billing of energy based on reactive energy (KVAh) instead of active energy (KWH). The respondent argued the same issue was decided earlier. Following that decision, the court allowed the petition without specific orders on costs, closing pending petitions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for mandamus against the billing methodology was allowed.

Sole Prop, M/S Sangameswara Theatre, Guntur Dist Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33976 OF 2012

¶3

Date:06.11.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Sangameswara Theatre, Rep., by its sole Proprietor K.Venkata Papa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged 55 Years, R/o. Station Road, Tenali, Guntur District .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chairman and others .. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.33976 OF 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

¶14

“… to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the billing of the energy of the petitioner basing on the reactive energy (KVAh) readings instead of Kilo Watt Hours (KWH) readings by the respondents as highly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Regulation No.2 (c) of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply) Regulation 2004 i.e., Regulation No.5/2004 and Regulation 2 (c) of the Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation Meters) Regulation, 2006 and Condition No.2.2.54 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶15

There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission appearing for the 1^st respondent submits that the same issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad v. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Hyderabad and others¹ .

¶17

Following the said decision, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶19

Date:06.11.2018 KH

¶20

1 2016 (3) ALD 174 (DB)

Sole Prop, M/S Sangameswara Theatre, Guntur Dist v. Chairman Aperc, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sole Prop, M/S Sangameswara Theatre, Guntur Dist v. Chairman Aperc, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Srinivasulu, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.S.S.S. Suryanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

N. Sahadeva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Polineni Singamma,Prakasam Dist Vs Collector,Ongole,and 3

Kathi Seshaiah Vs State of A.P

S.Ajay Nagendra Babu, Vs Union of India