Disposed

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

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/33259/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the insistence on a No Dues Certificate from the distribution company as a condition for open access power supply under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. An interim order dated 09.10.2015 had already directed respondents not to insist on the certificate; counsel represented no further orders were necessary, respondents did not dispute it, and the writ petition was clos

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE 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 PETITION NO: 33259 OF 201s

¶7

Between:

¶8

l\i1ls, Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd., (Service Connection bearing No. IvIBN385) Amangallu Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District rep. by its IVanaging Director, Paritosh Kumaar Agarwal.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PET|T|ONER

¶11

1 . The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, the Southern Power DistriQution Company of Telangana Limited, Mahaboobnagar, lvlahaboobnaga r District\ Telangana State.

¶13

The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Mahaboobnagar, I,4ahaboobnaga r District. Telanqana State.

¶14

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana. Limited, rep. by its Chairman and lt4anaging Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

The Chief Engineer, SLDC, The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶16

Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its Secretary, A.P. Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Ariicle 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 a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents in insistrng upon the petitioner to get No Dues Certificate from the 11' respondent for availing open access power as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and ultra vires of Section 42 of lhe Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of the A.P- Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Open Access) Regulation 2005 and also violative of petitioners Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles¹ 4,¹ 9( 1 Xg ) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶19

,./ ,//

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201]5(WPMP. NO:42919 OF 2015)

¶21

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 direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to insist upon the No Dues Certificate from the 1st respondent while giving Standing clearance / No objection certificate to the petitioner to avail rrpen access power in terms of section 42 of lhe Electricity Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Pr-.titioner: SRI D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the R-.spondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRI R.VINOD REDDy, SC FOR TGSPDCL Cou nsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI N.SRIDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TCTL Counse I for the Rr:spondent No.6: SRI P.PRASAD, SC FOR TSERC

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HOi{,BLE MRS^{JUSTIC€ SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶25

WRIT PETITION^{NO.33259OF 2015}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri D.V.^{Nagarjuna Babu, learnedcounsel} appearing on^{behalf of the petitioner,Sri R' vinod} Reddy, learned^{StandingCounsel forTGSPDCL'} appearing on^{be_hatf of respondent Nos'1 to 3, Sri N'} Sridhar Reddy,^{learned counsel appearingon behalf of} respondent Nos.4^{and 5 and Sri P' Prasad, learned} Standing Counsel^{forTelangana State Electricity} Regutatory Commassion,^{appearingonbehalf of} respondent No.6.

¶28

The^petitioner approached the^{Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶29

" to issue a writ or order^{of direction more} particularly one in the nature of^{Writ of Mandamus} declaring the^{action of the respondentsin insisting} upon the^{petitioner to getrhoDues Certificatet'from} 1tt respondent for^{availing open accesspoweras} highly illegal, arbitrary,^{unjust and uitra viresof} Section^{42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the} provisions of the A'P.^{ElectricityRegulatory}

¶30

¶31

w? 33259 2015

¶32

Commission (Terms and Conditions of Open Access) Regulation, 2005 and also violative of petit.ioner's Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 19(1Xg) and 21 of the Constitution of I nd ia... ".

¶33

3 This Court vide its order dated 09.1O.2015 fassed^{interim order infavour of the petitioner}

¶34

observinq as under

¶35

"Notice before admission.

¶36

Post along with W.P. No. 30950 of 2014.

¶37

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that, in\ identical matters. interim orders have been granted.

¶38

In view of the same, the respondents are directed not to insist on furnishing of No Due Certificate by the petitioner as a condition for providing open access to it".

¶39

It is represented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the interim order dated 09.10.2015 no further orders are necessa rY.

¶40

¶41

wP 33259 2015

¶42

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 does not dispute the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶43

Bringing the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, the writ petation is closed. However, there sha[ be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel. the miscellaneous petitions, .if

¶45

any, pending in the Writ Petition shall alsg stand closed. so7- KSNEERAMA RTHY ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 One CC to SRI D.V.NAGARJUNA^{BABU, Advocate} [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI R VINOD REDDY,^{SC FOR TGSPDCL} {OPUCI ? One CC to SRI^N SRIDHAR^{REDDY, SCFORTCTL} [OPUC] 4( Two CD CopiesOne CC to SRI P.PRASAD, SC^FORTSERC [OPUC]

PSK. GJP t A-

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711212024

ORDER

WP.No.33259 of 2015

1HE s'14
o f.."
c
I c
(j
0 3 rltR 2025
.]" t-.^'

¶58

CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

¶60

t3^v/l-5 TtuV>

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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

A.Chandra Sekhar, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

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