In a writ petition challenging the levy of fuel surcharge adjustment on electricity consumers under the AP Electricity Reforms Act and Electricity Act, 2003 for non-compliance with procedural requirements and arbitrariness, the High Court of Telangana held the challenge unworthy of acceptance.
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.
l32s2l
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEI\i{BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28470 OF 2010
Between:
Sorvotham Care Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. M. Mohan Krishna (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 ) Office at 1-20-248, Umajay Complex, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
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 set-aside the proceedings No. APERC / Secy/ Jt.Dir. ( Tariff - Engg. ) / No. 05,06,07 and 08 even dated 5/6/2010, through which approved the levy of fuel surcharge adjustment ( FSA ) indicated therein on all consumers ( except LT and Agricultural ) for the Financial year 2008-2009 ( 11412008 to 31l3l2OO9 ), charge and recover thro monthly bills from July, 2010 onwards as the same be declare as arbitrary, unjust and illegal apart from contrary to Regulation No. 1 of 2003 / lack of notice i Public hearing and the various provisions of AP Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 and Electricity Act, 2003, beside violation of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia and to set - aside the same by issuance of a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deemt fit and
' proper in the circumstances of the case or else the petitioner herr:in will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2010 (WP MP.NO:363 11 0F 2010)
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings No. ApERC / secy/ Jt.Dir. (Tariff - Engg.)/No.05 06,07 and 0B even dated 5t612010, of the 1.t Respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH.RAMESH BABU
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI p.pRASAD, SC FOR TSERC
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI ZAKIR ALI DANtSH, SC FOR TSNPDCL The Court made the following ORDER
I I I
-:-7
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.28470 of 2O1O
ORDERi
Heard Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petationer, Sri P. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TSERC, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking
prayer as under:
"...to set aside the proceedings l{o.APERC/SecY/lt. Dir (Tariff-En99)/ No.05,06,07 and 0B even dated 05.06.2010 through which approved the levy of fuel surcharge adjustment (FSA) indicated therein on all consumers (except PT and Agricultural) for the Financial year 2008-2009 (l/4/2008 to 31/3/2009) charge and recover through monthly bills from July, 2010 onwards as the same be declare as arbitrary, unjust and illegal apart from contrary to Regulation No.1 of 2003/lack of notice/Publichearing and the various provisions of AP Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 and Electricity Act, 2003, besideviolation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution ofIndia and to set
i
l
aside the same by issuance of a writ moreparticularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case or else thepetitioner herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss".
PERUSEO THE RECORD
A.P. electricitv Requlatorv Commigsion & Others reported in Civil Appeal Nos.5542 of 2016 with Nos.5543-620, s622-26, s630-63, 5666-68, s670-90,5692-804, 5806-61 0f 2016 and 8249 of 2015 against thepetitioner. The relevant para Nos.'48' and '49' of the said ludgment is extracted hereunder:
7
"48. In our opinion,the challenge made by the appellantsisunworthy ofacceptance'Fuel surchargeis really a surcharge levied to meet increasedcost of generationand purchase of electricityand the scope cannot be circumscribed tn by itsnomenclature'Thus' the formula Regulation458 and FSA determinedby the Commissionwouldtake into consideration various factorswhich result in the increased cost of generation andpurchase of electricity'
f f h
-+
if As a sequel, the miscellaneouspetitions,
any,pending in the Writ Petition shall alsostandclosed.
SD/. N.SRIHARI ASS T NT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// V----- SECTIONOFFICER
To
i,El:EEi:iEiiiffffiiRtid:3s'fsdillt'fd8?Ysl*opucr 4. TwoCD CoPies SA BSRw
HIGH COURT
DATED:1111212024
ORDER
WP.No.28470 of 2010
1l1E
..)
13 FIB M
a
DISMISSING THE W.P
WITHOUT COSTS.
6.rCil +*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the levy of fuel surcharge adjustment on electricity consumers is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Whether the proceedings approving the fuel surcharge are liable to be set aside for lack of notice and public hearing.
Whether the matter is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Sai Bhaskar Iron Ltd.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sai Bhaskar Iron Ltd. Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & OthersDistinguished¶34
(2016) 9 SCC 143 · Who else cites this
Sorvotham Care Ltd.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
