Dismissed

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Others v. M/s Axis Clinicals Limited and 2 Others

Telangana HC5 Mar 2021WA/73/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of review petitions filed to challenge an order directing payment of energy charges. Court held present case not fit for reviewing jurisdiction dismissing petitions.

What did the court decide?

Both the delay condonation petition (I.A.No.1 of 2022) and the review petition (No.2 of 2022) were dismissed.

What the court decided

PROCEEDING SHEET

S.
No

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

26.06.2023

HCJ & BVR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022 & Review Petition No.2 of 2022
Heard Mr. Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
review petitioners and Mr. S.Rahul Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been filed for review of the
order dated 05.03.2021 passed by this Court in
W.A.No.73 of 2021.
I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed for condoning the delay
of 519 days in filing the related review petition.

Respondent
No.1
had
filed
W.P.No.16490

of 2020 seeking a direction to the review petitioners, who
were arrayed as respondents in the writ proceedings to
pay the amount due to it towards energy injected in the
grid of the review petitioners.

Learned
Single
Judge
vide
the
order
dated 18.01.2021 allowed the writ petition and directed
the review petitioners to pay the amount due to
respondent No.1/writ petitioner as per the joint meter
reading dated 31.03.2020 in terms of the tariff fixed by
the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Review petitioners were also directed to consider
the application moved by respondent No.1/writ

petitioner for long term open access without insisting on

respondent No.1 to furnish undertaking that it would
forego amounts already due for the energy injected into
the grid. Review petitioners were further directed to
continue making payments to respondent No.1/writ
petitioner for the energy injected into the grid till such
time open access was granted or an agreement was
entered into between the parties.
It is against this order that the review petitioners
filed writ appeal No.73 of 2021. After hearing the matter
and with the consent of the parties, this Court disposed
of the writ appeal_vide_the order dated 05.03.2021
directing the review petitioners to process the application
of respondent No.1/writ petitioner for long term open
access on or before 05.04.2021. That apart, the amount
due and payable to respondent No.1/writ petitioner was
directed to be cleared by the review petitioners on or
before 30.04.2021. It was clarified that the aforesaid
direction of the appellate court was without prejudice to
the right of the review petitioners to raise a demand for
reimbursement for any inadvertent power pumped into
the grid during the period of synchronization which as
per the undertaking furnished would be free of cost to the review petitioners. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits
that it was contended before the Court on behalf of the
review petitioners that the pending open access request
of respondent No.1/writ petitioner would be processed
without insisting on furnishing of undertaking by

respondent No.1 to furnish undertaking that it would

forego amounts already due for the energy injected into

the grid. Review petitioners were further directed to

continue making payments to respondent No.1/writ

petitioner for the energy injected into the grid till such

time open access was granted or an agreement was

entered into between the parties.

It is against this order that the review petitioners

filed writ appeal No.73 of 2021. After hearing the matter

and with the consent of the parties, this Court disposed

of the writ appeal_vide_the order dated 05.03.2021

directing the review petitioners to process the application

of respondent No.1/writ petitioner for long term open

access on or before 05.04.2021. That apart, the amount

due and payable to respondent No.1/writ petitioner was

directed to be cleared by the review petitioners on or

before 30.04.2021. It was clarified that the aforesaid

direction of the appellate court was without prejudice to

the right of the review petitioners to raise a demand for

reimbursement for any inadvertent power pumped into

the grid during the period of synchronization which as

per the undertaking furnished would be free of cost to the
review petitioners.
Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits

that it was contended before the Court on behalf of the

review petitioners that the pending open access request

of respondent No.1/writ petitioner would be processed

without insisting on furnishing of undertaking by

respondent No.1/writ petitioner in terms of the letter
dated 18.12.2020.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
on due consideration, we are of the view that present is
not a fit case for exercising our review jurisdiction to
review the order dated 05.03.2021 passed in W.A.No.73
of 2021. However, we are of the view that the aforesaid
order was passed by this Court in the facts and
circumstances of W.A.No.73 of 2021. Each case would
have to be decided on the facts of that case. No further order is called for. Subject to the above, both the delay condonation
petition as well as the review petition are dismissed.
_________ HC J
_________ BVR, J LUR

respondent No.1/writ petitioner in terms of the letter

dated 18.12.2020.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

on due consideration, we are of the view that present is

not a fit case for exercising our review jurisdiction to

review the order dated 05.03.2021 passed in W.A.No.73

of 2021. However, we are of the view that the aforesaid

order was passed by this Court in the facts and

circumstances of W.A.No.73 of 2021. Each case would

have to be decided on the facts of that case. No further
order is called for.
Subject to the above, both the delay condonation

petition as well as the review petition are dismissed.

_________
HC J

_________
BVR, J
LUR

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Others v. M/s Axis Clinicals Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Others v. M/s Axis Clinicals Limited and 2 Others

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

Sriven Marketing, Vs The Union of India

Mr. Perudi Suresh Vs The State of Ts

News item published in Deccan Chronicle Vs State of Telangana and 11 Others

Syed Zakir Hussain, B. E. Civil Vs The State of Telangana

G.Nirmala Vs The Registrar (Administration)

Om Prakash Modani Vs a P Mahesh Cooperative Bank Ltd.