Disposed

G.Prabhakar Rao, Hyderabad. v. Secy., Aperc., Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022PIL/145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Public Interest Litigation challenging retail supply tariffs for FY 2012-13 was disposed of as infructuous because the term fixed for the tariffs had expired by efflux of time as this was filed in March 2022 for a term ending in March 2013.

What did the court decide?

Deposit the PIL as infructuous after the expiry of the tariff term; close pending miscellaneous applications if any.

G.Prabhakar Rao, Hyderabad. Vs Secy., Aperc… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO: 145 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

G. Prabhakar Rao, S/o G Kamaiah,^{Aged about 70 years, RetdAPSEBEmployee} Ramagundam Thermal Power Station^{R/o H.No.2411102, Opp: Jaya Residency,} Jayanagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PET|T|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission^(APERC), D.No.11-4660,4th & Sth Floors, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad^- 500 004, Represenled by its Secretary.

¶11

The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.,^(APCPDCL), 2nd Floor, Mind Compound Hyderabad - 500 06, represented by^its Chairman & Managing Director,

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Energy, represented by^its PrincipalSecretary,SecretariatBuildinqs. Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESpONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Retail Supply Tariffs {or FY 2012-2013 dated:31 .03.2012 approved by the Respondent.no.l with regard to the Aggregate Revdnue Requirement (ARR) submitted by the Respondent.no.2 in O.P.No.4l2O12 which come in to effect from 01.04.20 12 resting on the clause 6 of the public notice dated:- O5.O1 .2012 issued by the Respodndent.o.'l creating the power to itself to screen the technical O & N/, AC., LT Distribution system objections/ suggestions at its whims and caprice drawing ils source from Rule 7 of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions for determination of tariff for wheeling and retail sale of electricity) Regulations 2005 (Regulation 4 of 2005) which were made in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (zd) (ze) and (zf) of section 181 rlw. Sections 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act 2003 together as being violative of Section 64 (3) of the Electricity Act 2003. and Section 29 (1)^(c)

¶15

¶16

Ss (2) (a) of the Electricity Reforms Act 1998,^{and is also violative of the} Mandatory provisions under Sec. 61, 62 Bt 6a^{(3) of A.P. Electricity Act 2003 and} Sec's 9,10,11.15,17,26,28.29^{(1) (c) of the A.P. Electricity Reforms Act 1998and} Rules 3.4,5.6, 86 8 of the A.P.^{Electricity RegulatoryCommission(Terms &} Conditions for Determination^{of Tarifffor Wheelingand Retail Saleof Electricity)} Regulations 2005^(Regulation 4 of^{2005) and also the Principles of Natural} Justice, arbitrary^{illegal and is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of} lndia and consequently set aside^{the same}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. P. RADHAKRISHNA}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI P. SRI RAGHU RAM}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRIR. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: THE^{ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL} FOR GP FOR ENERGY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHII JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶23

THE N'BLE SRI JUSTICE AB HINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI

¶24

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.145 OF 2Ol2

¶25

ORDER, pe' rr,' s. nbte the ChklJus.Ie sonsh ctandta st@na)

¶26

The present public interest litigation has been Iiled in respect of the Retail Supply Tariffs for the frnancial year 20 l2-2O13 dated 3 1.O3.2O I 2.

¶27

The term fixed was only for one year and by efflux of time,

¶28

the present public interest litigation has become infructuous.

¶29

The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of as infructuous.

¶30

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶31

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I AI/ secrrslt6lrrcen

¶33

To,

¶34

1 One CC to Sri P. Radhakrishna Advocate tOpUCl 2 Tilio CCs to the Additional Advocate Genei-al, Hiqh Court for the State of

¶35

Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶36

3 Two CCs to GP for Energy, Hidh Court for the State of Telangana at

¶37

Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶38

One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, SC FOR TSSPDCL IOPUCI 9n" 99^{tg Sri P. Sri Raghu R-am, Advocate} tOpUCl' 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy

CHR

MMA

HIGH COURT

DATED:16t03t2022

ORDER

P.!.L.No.145 ot 2012

.: j l4
//:'
/5
19 Jut ?[?2
\ \i-- -r'

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE PIL AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

-
lJrl
h
2 /

G.Prabhakar Rao, Hyderabad. v. Secy., Aperc., Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Prabhakar Rao, Hyderabad. v. Secy., Aperc., Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Member Secy., Apslsa, Hyd. Vs Secy., Min. of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi and 24 Ors.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs the C.E.O., Cantonment Board Secunderabad

Dr. T.Vijendra Rao Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by The Principal Secretary

O.C. Sankshema Sangham, Hyderabad. Vs the State of Tg.,Mun.Admn.,Hyd.,and Anr.

Swamy S.B. Das, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 6 Ot

Dr.Ch.Dayanand. Secunderabad Vs Secretary, Ministry of Legislative Affairs, New Delhi and 3 Ot

M.M. Baig , Mirza Mahboob Baig, Secbad., and Anr. Vs the Govt.of a.P.,Minorities,Hyd.,and 13 Otrs.

Nedunuri Sri Venkata Nageswar Rao, Secunderabad Vs Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

K. Sammi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sharada Dondlapally Vs Pittala Venkataiah

Union of India Vs Kota Suvarna

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another Vs Ganta Buchiram Reddy and 5 Others

Redapangu Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Kingshuk Nag, Vs The Chief Election Commissioner