Disposed

M/s K. B. Rolling Mills Private Ltd., v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/29480/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the insistence on a No Dues Certificate for availing open access power under the Electricity Act, 2003. With an interim order already operating permitting open access subject to payment of charges, counsel agreed no further orders were needed; the writ petition was closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

No further relief granted; writ petition closed without costs in view of subsisting interim order dated 26.09.2014.

M/s K. B. Rolling Mills Private Ltd., Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON^{NO:29480 0F 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s K. B. Rolling^{Mills PrivateLtd" tr{uppireddypally Village'Toopran Mandal'} ivilu'ri odtiiti^{n-ep.ov it. rrllanaging Diirictor' Bikash Kumar Kedia}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The c nll r"rlti' Southern u-iJ^{rrrr Power inlsin-s Distribution oirector,M company i nt co m'po of u nd' Telangana Hvde ra bad'Ltd, rep by its}

¶12

2 The Superintending^{Engineer, Operation'-the Southern PowerDistribution} il;p"rtiy ;iili;ilanZ^{i-itA, r'l'eoatt at sansareddv relansana state'}

¶13

3 The c'"hi"tiv,it ii]rii'itina Senior Accounts^{Officer, Operation'^the Southern timitet, tr'iedakat sangareddv' Telansana Power Distrrbutionstate'}

¶14

4 The Transmission^{corporationof Telangana.Limited'rep by its. chairman} ;ffi Maiifi ils^{D'll"t"i,"niJv,i soudha,H"vderabad'relansanastate.}

¶15

5 The chief Enoineer, sLDC,^{The Transmission corporation of Telangana} t-imiteO, Vidyut'Soudha,^{Hyderabad,Telangana state'}

¶16

6 A.P. Electricity^{RegulatoryCommission, rep'' by its Secretary' A'PSingareni} Bhavan, Red^{Hills, HYderabad'}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueawritororderofdirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof WritofMandamustheactionoftherespondentsininsistinguponthepetitioner togetNoDuesCertificatefromthelstrespondentforavailingopenaccess power as highly^{illegal, arbitrary, unjust and ultra vires of Section 42 of |he} Electricity^{Act, 2003 readwiththe provisions of the A'P. Electricity Regulatory} Commission(TermsandConditionsofopenAccess)Regulation2005andalso

¶19

violative of petrtroners Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 368420F 20141

¶21

Petition underr Section 1sl cpc praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma;, be pleased to direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to insist upon the No Dues (lertificate from the 1st respondent while giving standing clearance / No Dues ce.tificate to avail open access power n terms of Section 42 0f the Electricity Act 20.13 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU -:

¶23

Counsel for the Res;pondent No.1 to 3: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI N.SRIDHAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.PRASAD, SC FOR TSERC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE^{MRS TUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶27

wRIT^{PETITIONNo.294IooF2o14}

¶28

o RDER

¶29

Heard^Sri D.V. Nagariun^{Babu, learned counsel} behalf of^{the petitioner'Sri R' Vinod} appearing^on Standing^{Counsel forTGSPDCL'} ReddY,^learned appearing^{on behalf of respondentNos'1 to 3' Sri N'} SridharReddy,learnedcounselappearingonbehalfof respondent^{Nos'4 and 5 and Sri P' Prasad'learned} Standing^{CounsetforTelanganaState Electricity} Regulatory^{Commission' appearing onbehalf of} respondent^No.6'

¶30

2 T e oeti^toer a OD oach^d the Cou eekin^o Dra ver^asunde

¶31

" ...to issue^{a writ or order of directionmore} particularly^{one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus} declaring^{the action of the respondentsin insisting} upon the^{petitioner to get "No Dues Certificate"} from l't^{respondent for availing open access power} as highly^{illegal, arbitrary'unjust and ultra vires of} Section42oftheElectricityAct'2003readwiththe provisions^{of the A'P' ElectricityRegulatory}

¶32

¶33

wP 29480 2014

¶34

Commission (Terms and Conditions of ()pen Access) Regulation, 2005 and also violative of petifioner's Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles; 14 19(1)(g) and 2t of the Constitution of India...''.

¶35

3 This Court vide its order dated 26.O9.2OL4 in P.N oL4 ssed interi favour of the oetitioner observinq as under:,,^'

¶36

"tt is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for resporrdents that this Court in similar circumsta nces grantecl interim orders in WPMP No.35829 of 21013 on 16.12.2013.

¶37

in view of the above, if the petitioner wants to avail energy through open access, DISCOMS may not insist for No due Certificate for the dues to the DISCOI4S. Once open access charges are paid, the petitioner may be permitted to avail open ac,:ess subject to other conditions. However, it is oper for the DI:S;COMS to take appropriate action accorrJing to provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of their d ues".

¶38

It is represented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the interim

¶39

wP 29460 2014

¶40

¶41

order dated^{26.Og.20L4 in W'P'M'P' No'368420f 20L4} no further^{orders are necessary'}

¶42

Sri R. Vinod^{Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for} TGSPDCL,^{appearingon behalf of respondent 1 to 3 does not} dispute^{the said submission made on behalfof the petitioner'}

¶43

Bringing^{the said submissionof the learned} counsel^{appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record'} However,^{there shall be no} the writ Petition^{is closed'}

¶44

order^{as to costs.}

¶45

Asa sequel,^{themiscellaneouspetitions'if} any,^{pendingin the Writ Petition:hall 3Egstaid closed'} S D/-N. SRIHARI ,./ ASSI N REGISTRAR^/

//TRUE^COPY//

To,

E ION OFFICER

One^{CC to SRI D'V NAGARJUNABABU' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶51

One CC^{to SRI N'SRIDHAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]} J. One CC^{to SRI R VINOD REDDY'SC FORTGSPDCL[OPUCI} 4. One CC^{to SRI P'PRASAD'SC FORTSERC[OPUCI}

¶52

6 Two CD^CoPies

¶53

BSR GJP

pna,-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1711212024

ORDER

WP.No.29480 of 2014

,/61 HE S14
,..'-. 1
//'.'
(.'; il 4 iirit 2025
' ,..,.,..
.',, {'
,.1;.1,1\::: :.r,r:. -,1.D

¶60

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

8^q. \21:-1>'

M/s K. B. Rolling Mills Private Ltd., v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s K. B. Rolling Mills Private Ltd., v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. L K S Classic Restaurant and Bar, Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Mohammed Omer Vs The State of Telangana

Managing Partner, M/S.G.Vikas Reddy and Co., Hyderabad Vs Md, Ts Medical Services and Infrastructure, Hyd and Another

M/s Navadurga Billets (P) Ltd. (MBN-725) Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

M/s. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

A.Chandra Sekhar, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation