Dismissed

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., v. The Southern Power Distribution Company

Telangana HC19 Sept 2024WP/12146/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana heard a writ petition challenging late payment charges levied on stayed amounts and a connected case seeking a stay on such charges. The Court observed that interim orders from an earlier case rendered further orders on the current petition unnecessary, thereby closing the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition declared closed with no order as to costs.

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., Vs The Southern Power… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s2 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12146 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

N4/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd.,,^(Service Connection^{bearing No.MBN371)97.1E Jl D-hargaRoad,} Kothur,stiad nagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar^{District rep. by its Vice President B.K.Mandelia}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Southern Power Distribution Company, of^{Telangana Limited, rep.by its Chairmanand} Managing Oirector, Mint Compound, Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶13

2 The Superintending Engineer, Operatton,^{Tire Southern, Power Distribution Companyof} Telangana Limited, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar^{District, TelanganaState.}

¶14

3 The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation,^{The Southern, Power Djstribution Company of} Telangana Limited, Mahaboobnagar,^{Mahaboobnagar District, TelanganaState.}

¶15

..,RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutiori of^{lndia prayingthat in thecircumstances stated} in the alfidavit faled therewith, the^{HighCourt may be pleasedtoto issue a writ or orderof direction} more^pafticularty one in the^{nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the actionof the respondentsin} levying the late^payment charges on^{the amountswhich are stayed and subject matter s.L.P.(Civil)} No. 1525112014 and SLP^{(Civil) No. 15985-15993/2014 as highly illegal,arbikary'uniust and nd} violative of the Fundamental Rights of the^petitioner under^{Articles,14, 19(1)(g),2'1, 265and300-,q} of the Constitution of Indra.

¶17

.A. NO: 1 OF 2015

¶18

PMP. NO: 16030 OF 2015

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that ln the^{circumstances stated in the affidavlt filed} in support of the^petition, the High court^{maybe pleasedto stay thelevyandthecollection of late} payment charges on the amounts which are stayed and subject^matter of^S L.P.^{(Civil) No} 1SrS1t2O14 and SLP^(Civil) No. 1598515993/2014^{including the disconnectionof the petitioner's} power supply pending disposat of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{D.V.NAGARJUNBABU}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl.^{R. VINOD REDDY(Sc FOR TSSPDCL)}

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

( I

¶24

HON'BLE MRS ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶25

IT PE ION No.1214 F

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjun Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶28

" ... to issue a writ or.order of direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in levying the late payment charges on the amounts which are stayed and subject matter S.L.P. (Civil) No.15257/2014 and S.L.p. Civit No. 15985- 15993/20 74 as highly illegat, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner under Articles U, 19(1)(9), 21, 265 and 300-4 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders"

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the interim orders of this Court dated 24.04.2015 passed in W.p.M.p.No.16O3O of 2015 in favour of the petitioner, no further orders are necessary.

¶30

¶31

¶32

The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not disputed by the^learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the^respondents.

¶33

Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of^the petitioner and duly bringing the said submission on record, the writ petition is closed. However, there^shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this^Writ Petltion, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/-T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶36

SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To, 1 One CC^{to SRl. D.V NAGARJUNBABUAdvocate[oPUC]}

¶38

? One^{CCto SRl.R. VINOD REDDY (SC FORTSSPDCL)Advocate IOPUC]} 3 Two^CDCopies 4 One^sparecoPY GK

¶39

BS \ty

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912024

ORDER

WP.No.12146 ot 2015

1 H L I A
s
uo
02 t: i, 2W
C)
l"t€ C

¶45

CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶46

WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

toY/
6
N,/
ifiv

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., v. The Southern Power Distribution Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., v. The Southern Power Distribution Company

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

Gurram Vasudeva Reddy Vs Central Electricity Authority

Stambam Khadi Ramesh Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

China Omkar, Vs The State of Telangana

Bachu Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Palepu Hanumantha Rao S/o. Ramaiah, Vs The Telangana Transmission Corporation

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana