Disposed

Quality Wire Products, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024WP/19647/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A sick industrial unit sought restoration of power supply without complying with eleven conditions imposed in the respondent's proceedings dated 12-09-2014. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3, who were directed to consider it in accordance with law within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make fresh representation within two weeks; respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider it per law within two weeks thereafter; no costs.

Quality Wire Products, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19647 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

9uality^{Wre Produ_cts,Havingits Factoryat in Sy.No.55/3, RaghavapurBhoongir} Y9n9"l,^{Nalgonda District-TS-Rep.by its'Managing Directoi, Ra-kesh kumar Goir,} S/o.Kailash Chandra Gour, Aged'about 38 years, 6cc Business, presentlv residino at H.No.27, Modern Traders, NTY Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

ANO

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary T.S.P.S T. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 llg^{Ctjgl General Manager (Commerciat),T.S.P.C L.D.C il Ftoor, Corporate} Offrce, Mint Compound Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Superintendent Divisional Engineer, Bhoongir Division (Operational) Bhoongir, Nalgonda District-T.S.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly that of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings dt '12-09-2014 in Memo No.CGM.(ComlySE(C) ADE-ilt/D.No.i066/14 dt 12-09-2014 is questioned in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article, 14, 19(1) (g), 21 and 300-4 of ttre constitution of lndia consequently direct the Respondents to restore the power supply to the petitaoner unit under the Sick Unit Revival Scheme without insisting on the compliance of mentioned in letter dt.2105-2014 Memo No.CGM(c) DE(c) ADE-1il/D-623.

¶16

|.A.NO:l OF 2016^{(WPMP.NO:24'122} OF 2016)

¶17

Petition Under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner unit under the Sick Unit Revival Scheme existing in Sy.No.5413, Raghavapur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District-TS without insisting of the compliance of^'1 1 conditions stipulated in the proceedings dt.12-09-2014 in Memo No.CGM.(Coml)/SE(C) ADE-Ill/D.No.1066114 d1.12- 09-2014 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENKATAIAH EDIGA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : --

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI R.VINOD REDOY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE^{MRS IUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard^{Sri E.Venkataiah'learned counsel appearlng} on behalf^{of the petit'oner and Sri R'Vinod Reddy' learned} StandingcounselforTSSPDCL,appearingonbehalfof resPondent^{Nos'2 and 3'}

¶27

2 The^{petitioner approached the Cdurt seeking prayer}

¶28

as under:

¶29

"... to issue^{an appropriate writ or} 'direction more L)articularty^{one in the n"t'i"-lf Writ of Mandamus declarinq} iil"iiiiiiirn"R*?:it:i*";;::f:,:Z':A:2:;;i;iz ResDondent^{No'2 in issutnt} tn Memo^{No.ccM'(comttt\iiCS'ADE'ill/D'No1066/14 dt'} arbitrary, 12.0g.2014isquestioned_-iiiniswritNtitionasbeing^{itlegal and viotativi oi iiicle 14' 19(1) (9') 21 and} 300-A of^{the constttuttonoi inaiu consequently' direct the} i,;ii;;;;r';h;-sick Res[ondents^{to restore tJnitnevivat scheme tnl po*t'supplY without insistins -tothe} -peritioner^on the comoliance^{of mentioned in letter dt'21'05'20'14Memo} ';;; ;;;;i,i'i:7to eoe'mii-ais^{and pass such other order} or orders".

¶30

The^{case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner} started^{an Industryengagedin productionof CO-2'weldingwire} andotheralliedproducts.Later,thefactoryisclosedSincethe HT connection^{has become sick and hence'the petitioner} addressed^{a letter to the Chief General ManagerCommercial'}

/- .<br>

A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Mint Compound, Hyderabad on 10.03.2014 requesting conversion of H.T. connection from 547 to 50 Hp L.T. connection and to levy the minimum charges from the date of disconnection. Pursuant to the said representation, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings calling upon the petitioner to comply with as many as 11 unreasonable conditions. Although it was informed that the company was shutdown and power was disconnected for more than one and half year, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.7,56,574/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶35

Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.z and 3 submits that vide the impugned order dated t2.O9.2014, the petitioner was accorded approval for restoration of power supply under sick unit revival scheme on certain conditions and in view of the fact that the restoration of power supply to the sick unit was on specific conditions, the petitioner shall comply with the same and there could not be any change to the impugned proceedings dated 12.09.20L4.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel also points out that though the writ petition is pertaining to the year 2016, there are no interim

ordersinfavourofthepetitionerandthewritpetitioncouldbe closed^{giving a liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh} representation^{to the respondentNos'2 and 3'}

¶42

The said^{submission made by the learnedStanding Counsel} appearing^{on behalf of the respondentt'los'2and 3 is not} disputed^{by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the} petitioner

¶43

Taking^{into consideration the Cubmission made by} thelearnedStandingcounselappearingonbehalfof respondent^{Nos.2 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of} directing^{the petitionerto approachthe respondentNos'2} and 3^{with a fresh representationin the event the} petitioner^{has any grievanceas on date pertaining to the} subject^{issue within two (O2) weeks from the date of} receipt of^{the copy of the order and upon the petitioner} making any^{such representation, respondent Nos'2 and3} are directed^{to considerthe same in accordance to law} withinareasonableperiodoftwo(o2)weeksthereafter and^{pass appropriateorders upon the said representation} and duly^{communicatethe decision to the petitioner'} However,^{there shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶44

¶45

(-:

¶46

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶47

the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶48

SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// -r

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

¶51

The Principal Secretary,^{T.S.P.S,T.Secretariat'State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. 2. f6" Cnlet Cen"ral Manager^{(Commercial),T.S.P.C.L.D C. ll Floor,Corporati:} Office, Mint Compound^HYderabad. 3. itrJSi:perintendbnt Divisional^{Engineer,Bhoongir Division (Operational)} Bhoongir, Nalgonda^{District-T.S.} 4 One Ce io SR:l VENKATAIAH^{EDIGA, Advocate} IoPUC] 5 One CC to SRI R.VINOD^{REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL} [OPUCI b Two CD Copies' SA LS )^\W

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10912024

ORDER

1 r\E STAI €
s
o
3t 0Eg ml

¶56

WP.No.19647 ot 2016

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (+

¶58

4 l2- I>L
I
?.6

Quality Wire Products, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Quality Wire Products, v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s Sri Chimmanlal Paper Mills, Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company limited

P.L.V. Prasad, S/o. P. Rama Naidu Vs Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

M/s. Keerthi Industries Limited, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

Mandala Chandrakala, Vs Telangana State Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

G. Ramprasad, Vs The Managing Director

M/s Hyderabad Supplying Co. Vs The State of Telangana