Disposed

Gajanan Tamra Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2025WP/14442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging demand notices issued by TSSPDCL seeking payment towards surplus energy allocated to APGPCL. The petitioners had filed objections which were not considered. Without expressing any view on merits, the court directed respondent No.3 to review the objections and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within three weeks, with interim protection continuing mea

What the court decided

AI extract

Gajanan Tamra Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

[^{3301 I}

Ar^HYDERABAD

rN^{rHE H'GH couRr} E?:JX,%?lsJs^3J'[5i#:iNA

¶6

'i)5'-''A"rJX'i"FSS\iPft {"%JP

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

TH E^{HoNouRABLE sRt JusTlce puulAKARTHIK} Tto NN^{O:1 44420F2024} wRIT^PETI

¶9

**"Fm[;Hixntr+,:-i"titril,i:,i.f fh:w's:,i3'i%LRr

¶10

r'?.1i^Y# ::il::

¶11

' $ffi hiqTl:Jj't'i'ffi#t:i;'

¶12

"+ J^{g3iP"1lft ;[ [",l?l'?3331'," " '*:o^}

¶13

1x:;EF :" -,'"-,^:;':,,,,.

¶14

AND

¶15

"o'"'"tion

¶16

ii"ffi^{l*ttu?i'xy'g'"Jl3s'Tl't'13,':t",:::""Hiiri-uo'a} circle'^{Hubsisud a' rSSP DcL'U ppal}

¶17

¶18

3 4 l'ffitl"Jx}:Lusd'*'"'"1 The Senior^{AccountsOfficer' Operation Circle' Hubsiguda' TSSPDCL' Uppal}

¶19

4 inoao,^HYderabao'

¶20

5 H,:$:lljS,:'ftfi^{i:,F""3I3V:133'i"1'31?i""i?ait'=tf;ilr-',}

¶21

Petition^{under Article226 of lheConstitutionof lndiapraying that in the} filed^{therewith' the High Court maybe} circumstances^{stated in tn""} 'Oti"" pleased^{to issue u *'it in tf'" nature of a Writ of Mandamusor any other} orders^{declaringthe action of the 3rd} appropriate^{writ direction" or.de' "'} notices^{dated 22t12t2o23'1811212023'} respondents^{in issuing *" i"""0} l 2O24unO^{O3'OU"O'4 demanding payment of Rs'4'67'57'948/-} 1 and^{g l} OZ|2O24,^{Rs.1,39,54'+rs/- 27 lO5fro; *t ''t'and 2nd petitioners respectively towards} surplus^{energy allocat"o o'APGPcL as wholly arbitrary' illegalwithout}

¶22

jurisdiction and void and consequenry direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against th( not paving the demand made in retter dated 03/06/20 24 by the.:, f:'Jil."::,ror

¶23

IA NO: 10F 2024

¶24

petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners for not paying the demand made in retter dated o3ro6/2024by the 3 respondent.

¶25

Counset for the petitioner : SRI CH.SATYASADHAN

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR ENERGY

¶27

Counsel for Respondents No.2to4 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶28

Counsel for Respondents No.5 :

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

I I

¶32

THE HON,BLE^{SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶33

WRIT^{PETITION No.14442 oF 2024}

¶34

ORD ER:

¶35

With the^{consentof both the parttes'this Writ Petition is}

¶36

taken^{uP for disPosal'}

¶37

This Writ^{Petition isfi1ed' under Articl e226 ofthe} Constitution^{of Ind'ia, seeking the followingrelief:}

¶38

or anu^other "..1o issue^{uLDnlttttlLe ttrLtu'eoI aW:t :J .M::!"^"t} opprcPiatc^n' '1 ' "t"o'''"'o'^{d'i'"n'' o'a"tdectoinq':hcactiottof thp 3"1} respon(Jenls^{in tssurns} '^l; ^i"!'il',;' i,i7|,"ii ':ll:lll:r' L!r'i!i'Zi tq)oz/zozq.^27/os/2021t ,8::r.ri;;""i;;' ,n.^-ri dnd 2,;1^petttrcncrs Rs.4.o7.57,e48/ :"^{i^} ?,;]?,^'ril,,l;i to ApopcL os uho a^arbttrary. respecuuelA 'iiii")',,ii"",t'"'o'":?;.:.i"!":"?;f;,"ii'"';ff;,::";,':tr:"::,';;o;;;';;;0"""o^{tot|)ardssurPhts} :""!!c ::::::::. ':,),,,,t,,^{,t;,o.1the respondents not} '::::i,Ti'.:';:i;!f^{o3'f Bi'i"ili'o' o'} "^{t " 5i.'ilp.,"a'"'p@ss'rnrr pass''} 3. Heard Sri M.P.Chandra^{Mouli' learned Senior Counsel} Sri Ch.Satyasadan'^{learned counsel forthe} representing learned^{GovernmentPleaderfor Enerryfor respondent} petitioners; N.Sreedhar^{Reddy,IearnedStanding Counselfor} No.1;^Sri Southern^{Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited' for} respondent^{Nos.2 to 4'Thereis no representationon behalf of} respondent^No.5.

¶39

4 Learned^{Senior Counsel for the petitronerssubmits that in} plrrsuance of^{the impugned demand notices'dated 22'12'2023'} 1a.12.2O23'^{lg.O2'2CJ24,27'O5'2O24 and O3'06'2024'issuedby}

¶40

¶41

Wp 14442_ a i
,94a/_ and.and. .'. ;

¶42

respondent No.3, demanding payment of Rs.4,67,57 ,94a/_ and.and. Rs. 1,39,58,419l_, the petitioners filed its objections enclosing month wise details of surplus ener$/ uide letter d.ated_ 06.06.2O24. However, respondent No.3 has not considered the said objections Iiled by the petitioners so far. Therefore, learned Senior Counsei prays this Court to direct respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on the ob-iections hled by the petitione rs tid.e letter dated 06.06.2024, within a stipulated period of time.

¶43

5' Learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that respondent No.3 wiil pass appropriate orders on the objections filed by the petitioners on O6.06.2f)24 in accordalce with law

¶44

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on the objections fiied bv the petttioners uide letter, dated C/6.06.2024, in pursuance of impugned demand notices, dated 22.12.21023, 18.72.2023, 19.O2.2O24, 22.O5.2O24 arrd O3.06.2024, issued by respondent No.3, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of

¶45

PK'J N p-14442:2024

¶46

¶47

receipt^{of a copy of this order'Till such time' the interimorder} granted^{by this Court on ll'Cl6 '2024 shal1continue'} Miscellaneous^{petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed}

¶48

There^{shali be no order as to costs}

¶49

Sd,.^M.NAG AMANI ISTANT^R EGISTRAR

¶50

SECTION^OFFICER I'TRUE^COPY"

¶51

¶52

ergy^{Department'TS}

¶53

To, al^Chie f Secretary'^{State of Telangana'}

¶54

1 The^SPect rabad Power^Distribution i, Hyoe uthern

¶55

Secretana ing Director,^So und ,^Hyderabad Mi nt^Compo

¶56

2 The^{Vice Chairman and} na^ManagState' TSSPDCL,^UPPAI company,^{Of Telanga} eration^{Circfe' Hubsiguda'}

¶57

a.Txhe Road,^{SuPerinteHYdending} rabad^Engineer' ,^{OPeration OPCircle' Hubsiguda'} TSSPDCL,^UPPAI ccounts^Officer

¶58

enior^A

¶59

1. q^The X The^RoaSt/lana d,^HYde glngrabad.^{Director, Andhra} aza,^Secre tariat Prade^Rosh ad,^GasHyderab Powe^r ad-91^CorP oration^Ltd '^{20'1 '} Saro^{var Pl}

¶60

MY^Home Advocate.^IOPUCI CH.SATYASADHAN' of^{Telangana'[oUTl}

¶61

6.^{One CC to SRI} FOR^{ENERGY'HighCourt for the State} 7.^{Two CCs to GP} N.SREEDHAR^{REDDY'SC FORTGSPDcL toPucl}

8.^{One CCto SRI}

9.^{Two CD CoPies}

BSK

PVL

HIGH COURT

DATED:02 t}tt2O2S

s*
g2
SEP M
:'l /'t'
,

¶70

ORDER

¶71

WP.No.14442 of 2024

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

R"dd&"

Gajanan Tamra Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gajanan Tamra Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

S.Krupakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

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

Bethamcharla Yelamanda (Died as per Lr P2) Vs The State of Telangana

Chennoju Bramha Chary Vs The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Vaddepally Dasu Vs The State of Telangana