Dismissed

M/S. Hindoil Industries (Rrs 961) Ida Kattedan, v. Andhra Pradesh Eleltricity Regulatory

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024WP/5600/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.5600 of 2015, the High Court at Hyderabad dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a letter charging interest, relying on a previous judgment (Batch Writ Petition No.15410 of 2009) which held the levy of additional charges illegal, and denied the interim interest claim.

What did the court decide?

No interest of Rs. 1,86,130/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner.

M/S. Hindoil Industries (Rrs 961) Ida Kattedan, Vs… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5600 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Hindoil lndustries (RRS 961) IDA Kattedan,, RR Dt Rep by its commercial manager and authorized signatory A.Narendra Babu, S/o Balappa, aged 41^years,

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory, Commission Rep by its Chairman, Singarani Bhavan Redhills, Hyderabad.

¶12

Southern Power distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director. Mint Compound, Hyderabad District.

¶13

Senior Account Officer, Operation Southern Power distribution Company of Telangana Ltd Ranga Reddy South, Nanal Nagar Cross Roads Raithubowli, Hyderabad.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the third respondent letter NO. SE/OP/PRC(S)/SAO/HT/D NO 65112015 DT 121011201 5 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and void in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court writ petitioner No-'154'10 of 2009 and batch dated 20-08-2014 allowed holding that the levy of additional charges by the first respondent cannot be held to be legal and when the third respondent is charging interest from the consume!'s even for one day delay the respondent have to pay interest on 50% of the additional charges which is deposited by the petitioner as per the court order for the period from 2009 to till

¶16

tFx--

¶17

judgment dale 2014 and also to direct the respondents to pay' the interest to the petitioner Rs.1 86, 1 30/-

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.V.UPENDRA GUPTA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.PRASAD (SC FOR TSERC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TS TRANSCO The Court made the following ORDER

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.56OO of 2O15

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri K.V. Upendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TSERC appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekino praver as under:

¶26

"..... to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the third respondent lerrer No. sE/oplpRc( s)/sAo/HTlD. N O.65 t I 20 rs, DT 12/07/2015 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and void in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Writ petition No.15410 of 2009 and batch dated 2O-08-2014 allowed holding that the levy of additional charges by the first respondent cannot be held to be legal and when the third respondent is charging interest from the consumers even for one day delay the respondent have to pay interest on 50o/o of the additional charges which is

¶27

2 u'P 5600 2015

¶28

deposited by the petitioner as^{per the} court order for the^{period from 2009 totill} judgment date 2OL4 and also to^directthe respondents to^{pay the interestto the petitioner} Rs.1,86,130/- and Pass.."'.

¶29

Sri R. Vinod Reddy,^{learned Standing Counselfor TS} Transco appearing^{on behalf of respondent Nos'2 and 3 brings} to the notice of the^{Court that in view of the order dated} 20.08.2074^passed in^{Writ Petition Nos' 15410, 14097,} 14967, t6354,^{19001,19018, L4195, 14198 and 16054 of} 2009, the^{petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for} in the^presentwrit Petition.

¶30

The learned Standing^{Counsel specificallyrelies upon} the^para 20 of^{the said judgment.}

¶31

Taking into considerataon^{the submissionsmade} by Sri R. Vinod^{Reddy,learned StandingCounsel for TS} Transco appearing^{on behalf of respondent Nos' 2 and} 3, and bringing^{the said subm'ssions on record' the writ} petition is dismissed.^{However, there shall be no order} as to costs.

¶32

siv w? 5600 20t5

¶33

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶35

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶36

.K. VENKAIAH SD' REG^ISTRAR ASSISTAN

¶37

IITRUE^COPYI'

¶38