The High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by power distribution companies challenging a Single Judge order that directed 25% power rebate for a new industry unit. The Court held the original order was correct and rejected arguments based on internal Board instructions regarding new ownership.
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.
IN'I'HI' HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 434 OF 2009
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 02-08-2007 in WP No. 454012003 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS
AND
It/is.Shreya Pet (P) Ltd.,, rep.by its General Manager (Operations) Mr.S.V.Subramanyam,aged-58yrs,Hindu r/o.39-54/4,Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,Qutbullapur Ranga Reddy District
...RESPONDENT
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 899 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, ifre nigfr Courtmaybe pleased to suspend the orders passed in WP No. 454012003 daled 22-08-2007,pending disposal of the Writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appellants:SRl. R VINOD REDDY, SCFOR TSSPDCL
Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. SHREYAS
The Court Delivered the following:
THE HC N'BLE THE CHIDF JUSTICE UJJAL I]I TYAN AND
THE I ION'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI ]Y,I,YI)A
WRIT APPEAL No.434 of 2OO9
JUDGMENT: ,et the llo| blp tltc ('lnel ,lustre Ullol Llhtllja l
Heard Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned courLsel for the appellants i.nd Mr. Shreyas, learned coun:;e l for the re spon d en t.
I
respondent sought lor a direct ion to ihe appellants tcr sanction and pay 25Yo pov,er reLrate arr<i to forebear licm collecting the additional consurrrption deposit urrtil extension of the power rebate tc the respondent.
I \
matter, iearr ed Single Judge held that the decision of the appellants dr n,1,ing the benefit ol 25(% rebate inpowcr tariff to the espondent \vas legally unr;ustainable. Consequentl /, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the appellants to extend the berLellt of 25o/o rebate in thr por.l,er tariff to the respondent fronr the date of production i.e., 28.10. 1999 for a period of three yezrrs with a further,:larification that respondent rvould get the consequenti al benefits.
I
l
"6. Thefollowing are the ince[tives under this (TARGET-2OOO" Scheme:
6.0ll All New industrial unrts, v.Thetlrer large, medium or srnall other than those Usted in tlre Anrrexurc, to be located anyuhcre in the statc cf Andhra Pradcsh. excepl within the Municipal Corporation areas o[ t{yderatia.d, Vijayau.ada and Vi-"akhapatnam, ancl going into corrlmercial production on or after Noveniber 15, i995 are eligible for the following incen'-ir.es.
6.041 Rebate in Electricity Charges:
All new industries, other than those listed in tle Annexure and other than thosc set dp in the MunicrpaJ Corporation areas o[ H-vrJc:-al'ad, Vija,yarvacla arrd Visakhapatnam, will be eligibie tbr 25o,'i, rchatc in power bills (both demand and enerry) for a perioci of 3 years frorn the date of commencemcnt oi commer cial production. The rebate shall be ailowed byt-he A.P. Statc Electricity Board in tticir monihly bills. The maximum total admissible reba'r-e ior the 3 years will be Rs. 50.00 lakhs in respect of Large a,nd Medium Industries ald Rs. 30.O0 la-khs in respect of small scale industries.
Note: The existing procedure of issuing eligibility certificate by the District Industries Centre and adrnission of claim by Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board will continue."
\
9 . Paragraph 6.0 1 says that all ne,v industrial units, whether large, medium or small, exceptthose listed in the
'?"
Annexure ar d located in the State of Andhra Pradesh, except rvitt in the municipal limits o{' Hyderabad, Vijayawada z.nd Visakhapatnam and going into commercial production cn or after 15.11.1995 would be etigible for the incentives nentioned in the subsequent paragrapJ-rs, including pa ragraph 6.04, which we have extra,:ted above.
I I . l-earr red Single .lucige took the vier,., that above policv decision \r" 1s not hedged by the condition that 25ok rebate would be 5 iven to only those industries whrch had obtained eligibilitv certificate u,ithin tu,o years frorrr the date of I i
(-
o
I I
I i
'..
'
release of supply. Ul[imatel,v, the writ perition 'ur.as allcu'ed
in the follou,ing terms:
In thc result, the writ pctition is allowed. The decision taken by the respondents not to extend the
\
1
I
t
I t
benefit c- 25%o rebate in power tariff to thepetitioner ts declared illcgal and quashcd. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of 25"/o rebate inpower tariff to the petitioner from the date of producton i.e. 28.10. M9 for a period of three years. The pe.itioner shall get consequential benehts."
.,
c
i3. G.O.lls.No. iOB. daie d 20.O5,. 199{i, contains policr' Cecision cf the Slate. It was riot open icr [ire Ancihra Pradestr State Electricity BorrrC to diiute the i:enetlcial provisions oi thc Statc pclic;. by bringing ti1 restrlctlve conditions which was not intended by the Statc. Vr'e, therefore, are not persuaded to place an/ reliance on the instructions of Andhra Pradesh State Dlectricitv Board. dated 03.0.1.1997
SD/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR
I
//TRUE COPY//
sEcTloN orrtcen
To,
PM BS \9-
HIGH COURT
DATED:14107 t2022
-a: - c :-fn i-! -::
/- i -/-,.:--
-i/
t.,l i'i.f i ?tl2 t
JUDGMENT
WA.No.434 of 2009
Dismissing the WA Without costs.
@
\rrPb1s
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellants are bound to extend the benefit of 25% power rebate under G.O.Ms.No.108 to the Respondent despite lacking an eligibility certificate within the two-year window.
Whether the single Judge's interpretation of the beneficial policy provision was legally sustainable.
Whether the appeal challenging the writ order dated 22-08-2007 merits allowance or dismissal.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.
Chief General Manager (Commercial), Andhra Pradesh TRANSCO
Superintending Engineer, (Operations Circle), A.P.C.P.D.C.L
Ujjal Bhuyan
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
