Disposed

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

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024WP/36589/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition challenging the respondent power company's refusal to adjust 50% of penal charges collected. The petitioner sought a direction to accept the adjustment and prohibit power disconnection. The court found that the cause of action no longer survived as the adjustment had been credited in March/April 2014, per respondent affidavits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed due to extinction of cause of action; no order as to costs.

M/s. Keerthi Industries Limited, Vs Central Power… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36589 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Keerthi lndustries Limited, (Consumer no. HDN467), A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Mellacheruvu Village Et Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. A.P. Pin 508 246, Represented by its Managing director J.S.Rao.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, Mint Compound, Secretariat, Hyderabad, represented by lts Chairman and Managing Director.

¶12

The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Hyderabad North, Rock Building, Mint Compound, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Hyderabad North, Rock Building, Mint Compound, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Represented by its Secretary.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 to 3 in not adjusting 50% of the Penal Charges collected from the Petitioner Company in the course

¶17

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/Secv/1 5412013 dated 08.08.2013 against future cc biils as, iltegal, arbitrary apart from being violative of petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly, to direct the respondents to accept the adjustment of S0% of the penalty made by the 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. HDN 467.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO:45483 OF 2013)

¶19

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 respondent no.'l to 3 not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner company including the disconnection of power supply to consumer No. HDN 467.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. DHULIPALLA V A S RAVI PRASA/ Counsel for the Respondents: SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Counsel forthe Respondents: O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: R VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

:l I

¶22

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶23

WRIT P ETITION No.3658 9 0F 2013

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TSERC, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶26

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

¶27

" ...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 to 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 0B-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

¶28

¶29

wP 36589 20 l-'l

¶30

and consequently direct the respondents to accept the adjustment of 50% of the penalty made by the petitioner while paying the November month Bitl and not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner Company including the disconnection of power supply in respect of its service connection No. HDN 467 and pass...,,.

¶31

?.^{Sri R. Vinod Reddy,learned Standing} Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 placing reriance on para No.4 0f the counter affidavit fired on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 contends that the cause of action in the present writ 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.

¶32

PE US EDTHE RECO RD

¶33

respondent Nos.2 and 3, in oarticular at para No.4 is extracted hereunder:

<br>

wP 36589 2013

:/'

"4. In reply to^para 11, it is submitted that as per guidelines of the TSSPDCL vide Memo No.CGM (Fin)/GM(Rev)/SAO(Rev)/nO(HT)/D. No. OI/2074, dated 04.04.2014, the 50o/o of R & C amount credited to the Consumer account in the month of March, 20t4 billed in April, 20L4. Hence the cause of action in the writ petition does not survive and the writ petition has to be dismissed on this ground alone,,.

¶38

Taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos, 2 and 3 and in particular para No.4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 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. 1to 3, the writ petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall alto stand closed.

¶40

¶41

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIC^ER

¶42

¶43

To,

¶44

Central Power Distribution company of Andhra^{Pradesh Ltd, Mint compound,} Secretariat, Hyderabad, represented by^{lts chairmanand Managing Director.}

¶45

The Superintendent Engineer, Operation^{Circle, Central PowerDistribution} CompanyofAndhraPradeshLimited,HyderabadNorth,RockBuilding,Mint@l

¶46

¶47

3' The Senior Accounts officer,, operation circle, centrar power Distribution Company of Andhra pradesh Limited, Hyderabad North, Rock Building, Mint Compound, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad.

¶48

Andhra Pradesh Erectricity Reguratory commission, singareni Bhavan, Red Hiils, Hyderabad, Represented by its Secretary

¶49

One CC to SRt. DHULTPALLA V A S RAV| PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRt. SRIN|VASA RAO PUTLUR| Advocate tOpUCI

¶51

One CC to SRt. O MANOHER REDDy Advocate [OpUC]

¶52

One CC to SRt. R VtNoD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO) Advocate tOpUCl

¶53

Two CD Copies

¶54

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912024

ORDER

WP.No.36589 of²⁰¹³

lHE SI4 14:
(
oo 0 6 JAN 2025
.+

¶61

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

)---"
t[ ww

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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. Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited