The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Writ Petition No. 24494 of 2008 filed by Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., which challenged the levy of voltage surcharge as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, relying on a previous Division Bench order.
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.
t32s2l
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL,A,NGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original J urisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVET/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 24494 OF 2008
Between:
M/s. Aurobindo pharma ltd., Being Rep. by its General Manager, lr,4r. Ch. Sri Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Ch. A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered and Administrative Office at Plot No.2,l,4aitrivihar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Venkata Reddy, Age 54, Occ Employee Rl/o. O/o. [,4/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
..PETITIONER
AND
Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of [\rlandamus by calling for the records relating to the levy of voltage surcharge in the C.C. Bill dt.26l1ol2008 for the month of October, 2008 (Ex.P4) to the petitioners unit bearing H.T. service connection No.MDK-693, and declaring the said action of respondents in levying Demand Charges at 12o/o extra over normal rate and Energy charges at 10% extra over normal rate as Voltage sucharge, totaling to Rs.1'l ,05,3921- in the said monthly bill (Ex.Pa) as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia.
l.A. NO: I OF 2008(WPMP. N O: 31960 OF 2008)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may be pleasedto stay the collection of an amount ofRs.11,05,392/- illegally levied as voltage surcharge in the C.C. Bill for the month of October,2008 in respect of their unit having H.T. service connection No.MDK-693,pendingdisposal of the main writ petition
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WV MP. NO: 258 OF2010)
Between:
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
AND
Ir,4/s. Aurobindo pharma ltd., Being Rep. by its General Manager, Mr. Ch.Sri Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Ch. Venkata Reddy, Age 54, Occ EmployeeRJo. O/o. lM/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Ameerpet, Hyderabad. A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered and Administrative Office at Plot No.2,
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleasedto vacate the interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.31960 of 2008 in W.P.No.24494 of 2008 dated 17.11.2008.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VIKRAM POOSERLA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO)
The Court made the following: ORDER
\ I
)
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.24494 OF 2OO8
ORDER:
Heard Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respo nd ents.
2 The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekino oraver as
u nder:
"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the levy of voltage surcharge in the CC Bill dated 26/1O/2OOB for the month of October 2008 (Ex.P4) to the petitioner's unit bearing H.T. service connection No.MDK-693, and declaring the said action of respondents in levying Demand Charges at l2o/o extra over normal rate and Energy charges at 10olo extra over normal rate as Voltage surcharge, totaling to Rs.11,05,392l- in the said monthly bill (Ex.P4) as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper an the interest ofjustice."
3, It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the subject issuein the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench
l u'r, 2449,{ 2008
order of this Court dated 25.08.2022 passed tn
W.A.Nos.772 and 775 of 2010 against the petitioner herein.
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if
any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
/
SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY AS ANT REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. One CC to SRl. VIKRAM POOSERLA, Advocate IOPVQL i. o;; cc io snt. RvlNoDREDDY(SC FoR TSTRANSCO)[OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BM GJP E A
HIGH COURT
DATED:0811112024
ORDER
I I t\ E S TA r€'
(l !
d ail,j:i ?i125 i
!t,]
o f c
WP.No.24494 of 2008
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
r N.
><br>/olit
dc,rt l-x
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding levy of voltage surcharge is governed by a prior division bench order.
Whether the writ petition filed u/s 151 CPC for stay needs to be vacated due to prior order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.Nos.772 and 775 of 2010Referred¶44
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Aurobindo pharma ltd.
M/s. Central Power Distribution company of A.P.Limited.
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
