Disposed

M/s. Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, v. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024WP/36559/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a company challenging non-adjustment of 50% penal charges collected under R&C measures despite APERC orders. Respondents stated the balance penal charges had been withdrawn and adjusted in future CC bills, so the cause of action did not survive. The writ petition was closed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, Vs Central… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t32521

¶2

<br>

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3655⁹ 0F²⁰¹³

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ivl/s. Vasant Chemicals Private^{Limited, A Company incorporated under the} CompaniesAct,lg56havingitsRegisteredOfficeat4thFloor'vasanln iowtiri,^genind Shoppers^{" Stop, Begumpet,Hy{19.b9^d^-500 016} Represented by its C.E.O^{viz..N SiikanthServiceNo RRN 698}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Central Power Distribution^{Companyof Andhra Pradesh Limited' Mint} Compouna, SecretarLi,^{Hyderadad,'representedby lts Chairman and} Managing Director.

¶13

Z in" S-upti,ntenOent^{Engineer,Operation} .Circle,^{Central Power Distribution} - c;t;,V oi Rnonri "prad6sh' Limited, Rangareddv North, Gunrock' Secunderabad.

¶14

ihe Senior Accounts^{Officer, OperationCircle, Central PowerDistribution}

¶15

C;mpant of Andhra - iiad'esrr Limited, Rahgareddy North' Gunrock' Secunderabad.

¶16

- Ananrj Fradesh Electricity^{Regulatory Commission, SingareniBhavan' Red} Hills, Hyderabad, Represented^{by its Secretary}

¶17

...RES,ONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Arttcle 226^{of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleasedtoissUeaWrit,orderorDirection,moreparttcularly,oneinthenatureof Writ of lrlandamus declaring^{the actionof Respondents 1 to 3 in not adjusting} 50%ofthePenal'ChargescollectedfromthePetitionerCompanyinthecourse of implementation of^{REICmeasuresas ordered by the learnedRespondent} No'4CommissionintermsoftheirorderSpassedinProceedingsNo. APERC/Secy/1 54t2013^{dated08.08 2013 againstfutureCC bills as' illegal'} arbitrary apart from^{belng violative of Petitionersrights guaranteed under Article} 14 and 19(1)^(g) of the^{Constitutionof lndia andconsequently'to directthe} respondents to accept the^{adjustment of 50% of the penaltymade by the}

¶19

--:rF ___i:-.-.

¶20

:---€ i.

¶21

petitioner while paying the November month Bill and not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner Company including the disconnection of power supply in respect of its service connection no. RRN698

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 45450 OF 2013)

¶23

Petitron under Sect on 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 respondent no.'1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner Company including the disconnection of Power supply to Consumer No. RRN 698

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DHULIPALLA V A S RAVI PRASAD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (sc FoR TSTRANSCO)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI, SC FOR APERC

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.36559 OF 2O13

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri D.V.A.S. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner, Sri R.^Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for^TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'¹ to^{3 and} Sri^P' Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for^APERC, appearing on behalf of respondent^No.4.

¶32

2, The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶33

" ...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1to 3 in^not adjusting 50o/o of the Penal Charges collected^from the Petitioner Company in the course^of implementation of R&C measures as ordered^{by the} learned Respondent No.4 Commission in terms^of their orders^passed in Proceedings^No. APERC/Secy/154/2013 dated 08-08-2013^against future CC bills as illegal, arbitrary apart^{from being} violative of petitioner's rights^guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)^(g) of the Constitution^{of India}

¶34

ad!3: * _:3

¶35

2 wP 36si9 20 t3

¶36

and consequently to direct the respondents to accept the adjustment of 50% oF the penalty made by' tfre petitioner while paying the November month Uill and not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner Company including the disconnection of power supply in respect of its service connection No. RRN698 and pass...,,.

¶37

3, Sri R.^/in cd Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 placing reliance on Para No.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 contends that the cause of action in the present wrrt petition does not survive for adjudication any more. The said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶38

PERU SED THE R ECORD

¶39

4, Cou ter affi avit filed on beh alf of the resDondent No.2 in Darti cular at D ra No.6 is extracted hereu nd er:

¶40

"6. In replv to Para 6 to 11 it is submitted that the APERC has issued orders on 50o/o waiver of penal charges levied during R & C period.

wP 36559 2013

Accordinqlv in obedience to the orders of APERC the balance 5oo/o^penal charqes of Rs.8,46,584.00 was withdrawn and adiusted in future CC bills. The cause of action in the writ Detition does not su rvive ",

¶45

Taking into consideration the averments made at para No.6 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 referred to and extracted above, and duly considering the submissions made by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the writ petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs,

¶46

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if

¶47

any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand close d.

¶48

To,

¶49

SD/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .<L - SECTIO tybFftcER

¶50

One UU to SRI DHULIPALLA V A S RAVI PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI, SC FOR APERC [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. R VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO) IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BIM LS

.*f.',&-+]€i (;

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912024

ORDER

/a:-
z(.1t:.., ii lt i( 'c
t:t:,3 ('
,4
1? i,E"
i1 ?02 ;a
li A
.>
,<br>{'
.\t-',a_-:

¶56

WP.No.36559 of 2013

¶57

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS

¶58

o (B a^/tt/4

¶59

i I \ I

¶60

a i,

M/s. Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, v. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s. Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, v. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Prabhakar Rao Vs Apsrtc,Director,Hyd,and 3

Vikas Mahila Mandali Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S Limited

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company

M/s. Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs R. Sridevi

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma Vs P. Prabhakar Rao

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