IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI **** W.P.Nos.12361 of 2008, 17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009 and 23906 of 2010 W.P.No.12361 of 2008 & Batch Between: 1. M/s. The K.C.P. Limited,, Macherla, Guntur District. Rep. by its General Manager (CM), Shri K. Ramakrishna, S/o. Sarweshwara Rao. 2. S. Ramesh Kumar,, S/o. Late S. Venakatarao, R/o. K.C.P. Quarters, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND 1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Chief General Manager Expr, Corporate Office. /APSPDCL, D.No. 19-13- 65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - 517 503. 3. Senior Account Officer, Circle Office, APSPDCL, 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur. ...Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.04.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + W.P.Nos.12361 of 2008, 17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009 and 23906 of 2010 % 17.04.2026 W.P.No.12361 of 2008 & Batch Between: 1. M/s. The K.C.P. Limited,, Macherla, Guntur District. Rep. by its General Manager (CM), Shri K. Ramakrishna, S/o. Sarweshwara Rao. 2. S. Ramesh Kumar,, S/o. Late S. Venakatarao, R/o. K.C.P. Quarters, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND 1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Chief General Manager Expr, Corporate Office. /APSPDCL, D.No. 19-13- 65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - 517 503. 3. Senior Account Officer, Circle Office, APSPDCL, 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur. ...Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner/s : Sri K. Gopal Choudary ^ Counsel for Respondent/s : Sri Sk. Md. Umar Abdullah, learned Counsel, Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL and Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL. < Gist: > Head Note: 4. ? Cases referred: i. MANU/AP/0442/2008 3 Judgment reserved on 03.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on 17.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on 23.04.2026 APHC010385752008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.Nos.12361 of 2008, 17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009 and 23906 of 2010 W.P.No.12361 of 2008 & Batch Between: 1. M/s. The K.C.P. Limited,, Macherla, Guntur District. Rep. by its General Manager (CM), Shri K. Ramakrishna, S/o. Sarweshwara Rao. 2. S. Ramesh Kumar,, S/o. Late S. Venakatarao, R/o. K.C.P. Quarters, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND 1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Chief General Manager Expr, Corporate Office. /APSPDCL, D.No. 19-13- 65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - 517 503. 3. Senior Account Officer, Circle Office, APSPDCL, 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur. ...Respondents 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.Nos.12361 of 2008, 17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009 and 23906 of 2010 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri K. Gopal Choudary, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners appearing online in (W.P.Nos.17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009) assisted by Sri Sk. Md. Umar Abdullah, learned Counsel, Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL and Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL. 2. This batch of Writ Petitions bearing W.P.Nos.12361 of 2008, 17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009 and 23906 of 2010 are being disposed of by this Common Order, inasmuch as these Writ Petitions involve similar issues. 3. For the convenience, the facts mentioned in W.P.No.17653 of 2009 are referred to in this Common Order. 4. The prayer sought in W.P.No.17653 of 2009 is as under: (a) declaring that the Respondents are not entitled to keep the generated in, or remained unutilized/ unallocated energy as at the end of, December of 2006 2007 and 2008 and/or thereafter in abeyance or treat the same as lapsed; and (b) declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Interim Balancing & Settlement Code) Regulation, 2006 (2 of 2006) is not applicable to the Petitioner; and (c) directing the Respondents to implement and continue to allow the facility of banking of electricity and the wheeling of electricity generated and banked electricity in accordance with the Power Wheeling & 5 Purchase Agreement dated 3.9.1998 as amended on 19.1.2005; and (d) directing the Respondents to wheel in subsequent months and notwithstanding any limitation in the agreement of the period for wheeling of banked energy, and to thereby enable the Petitioner to sell so much of the banked energy which was kept in abeyance and/or treated as lapsed as remains in balance and unsold in the meanwhile by the Petitioner; (e) and or pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper so that justice may be done.” 5. At the very outset, it is indicated that the issues involved in the present Writ Petition are squarely covered by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., and Ors (in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 dated 14.05.2008) : MANU/AP/0442/2008. Therefore, the issues involved in this batch of Writ Petitions are no more Res integra. 6. The facts stated in W.P.No.17653 of 2009 are to the effect that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.93, ENERGY (RES) DEPARTMENT, dated 18.11.1997 (Ex.P.1) with a view to encourage generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy provided with such incentives that are uniform to all projects based on renewable sources of energy; that the Writ Petitioner (in W.P.No.17653 of 2009) entered into a Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dated 03.09.1998 (subsequently amended on 19.01.2005) with the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) (Ex.P.2); that the A.P Electricity Reforms Act came into force on 01.02.1999; therefore, by virtue of the Reforms Act coming into force, all the rights and obligations of APSEB stood vested by operation of law in the A.P Transmission Corporation (APTRANSCO); that the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted by the Parliament, which came into force on 10.06.2003. 6 7. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for Writ Petitioner that the State Government had notified the Third Transfer Scheme, whereby, all the obligations of APTRANSCO to purchase unallocated energy from the non- conventional energy stations stood allocated and transferred by operation of law to the various DISCOMs. Consequently, the functions of banking of energy and purchase of surplus energy in respect of the Writ Petitioner’s mini hydro power plant that was vested with the APTRANSCO has now stood transferred and vested with the Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (Respondent No.1); that on 01.07.2005, the APERC (Terms and Conditions of Open Access) Regulation, 2005 for phased introduction of open access in terms of Section 42 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 came into effect on 01.07.2005; and that APERC (Interim Balancing and Settlement Code) Regulation, 2007 (2 of 2006) applicable for Open Access transactions comes into force with effect from 01.12.2006. 8. 8. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 addressed a Letter expressing his desire to purchase the surplus energy at Rs.2.41 per unit subject to acceptance by the Writ Petitioner of the said rate. The said Letter dated 23.11.2006 had also indicated that, if the rate is unacceptable to the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner was advised to bank the surplus energy and the surplus energy already delivered to the network of Respondent No.1 from October 2006 may be banked; that there was correspondence between the Writ Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. Writ Petitioner has addressed a Letter to the Energy Billing Centre as regards the surplus energy offer and that some part of the aggregated energy was not shown to the Writ Petitioner’s banked energy account. 9. It is further submitted that vide Letter dated 07.02.2007, the Respondent No.1 has reiterated that it would purchase only at the rate of Rs.2.17 per unit, thereby, deviating from its earlier offer to purchase the energy at Rs.2.41 per unit, since the issue of rate per unit was reviewed on 16.01.2007. On 13.06.2007, the Writ Petitioner herein addressed a Letter to 7 the Respondent No.1 that Regulation 2 of 2006 was not applicable to the Writ Petitioner. While the Respondent No.1 continuously reiterated the application of Regulation 2 of 2006 vide Letter dated 10.10.2007 and had kept the unutilized energy during the December, 2006 in abeyance for want of clarification from APERC, vide Proceeding dated 12.03.2008, the Respondent No.1 has informed that the energy remaining unutilized upto the end of December, 2007 had lapsed, and therefore, the request for billing of the banked energy during the months of January, 2008 was impermissible in terms of Regulation 2 of 2006. 10. Having been aggrieved of these conditions, the Writ Petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.17653 of 2009 seeking declaration that the Respondents are not entitled to keep the generated in or remained unutilized/unallocated energy as at the end of December of 2006, 2007 and 2008 and or thereafter in abeyance or treat the same as lapsed with a further declaration that Regulation 2 of 2006 does not apply to the Writ Petitioner with a further direction to implement and continue to allow facility of banking of electricity and the wheeling of electricity generated and banked electricity in accordance with the Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dated 03.09.1998 as amended on 19.01.2005. The Writ Petitioner also sought a direction to the Respondents to wheel in subsequent months, notwithstanding any limitation in the agreement for the period for wheeling of banked energy; and, to thereby enable the Writ Petitioner to sell so much of the banked energy which was kept in abeyance and or treated as lapsed as remains in balance and unsold in the meanwhile by the Writ Petitioner. 11. While these issues were pending, learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court had dealt with the similar issues in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 and rendered a Judgment on 14.05.2008. Learned Single Judge had held that on careful consideration of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the settled legal position, the Court is of the considered view that the Agreements held by the Writ Petitioners, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the 8 Electricity Act, 2003 are saved by the provisions of Sub-section (2) and (5) of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Single Judge had also held that Regulation 2 of 2006 would not have any bearing on the rights of the Writ Petitioners therein under the existing Agreements. It is also held that even if the Respondents are implementing the Regulation 2 of 2006 in toto, for the reasons mentioned in the said Judgment, Regulation 2 of 2006 cannot be enforced against the Writ Petitioners therein. The learned Single Judge had further held in Para No.32 of the said Judgment as under: “The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if Clause 12.1 of Regulation 2 of 2006 along with Appendix-3 is made applicable to the petitioners’ cases, they are entitled to draw the unutilized energy banked by them during the six months period from July to December of the year preceding the year in which the energy was banked. From the definition of “Banking”, which was reproduced supra, it is quite clear that its very purpose is to keep the excess energy generated by the generating companies in reserve, to be utilized at a later point of time, subject, however, to the conditions contained in the agreement. Under the amended clauses contained in the Agreements, the generating companies, which banked the energy, are entitled to utilize the same from August to March of succeeding year in respect of third party sales and from August to July, which is ca led Energy Year, of the succeeding year. Thus, a clear intention is manifested from these clauses that the generating companies are entitled to keep the energy generated by them in reserve for being utilized in future period, which shall not be beyond the periods stipulated in the above mentioned clause.” 12. The above extract would squarely indicate that under the amended Clause contained in the Agreement, the generating companies, which banked the energy, are entitled to utilize the same from August to March of succeeding year in respect of third party sales and from August to July, which is called Energy Year, of the succeeding year. The above extract would also indicate that the generating companies are entitled to keep the energy generated by them in reserve for being utilized in future period, which shall not be beyond the periods stipulated in the Clause of the Agreement. 9 13. It is also further submitted that following the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., and Ors in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 dated 14.05.2008, several other Writ Petitions came to be also disposed of in terms of the said Order. The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh had preferred Writ Appeal bearing W.P.No.1293 of 2008. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 17.07.2025 was pleased to dismiss the Writ Appeal since the Applicant therein has filed only against one Judgment while the batch of cases have been decided by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the W.A.No.1293 of 2008 has been dismissed as being not maintainable. 14. Sri Gopal Chowdary, learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2008 in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 had attained finality due to the dismissal of W.A.No.1293 of 2008 by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 17.07.2025, and therefore, the Order of the learned Single Judge has attained finality and the same would apply to the facts of the cases in the present batch of Writ Petitions. 15. Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL would also confirm this position that the present cases are squarely covered by the Judgment of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 dated 14.05.2008. 16. Having recorded the same, this Court deems it appropriate to allow these Writ Petitions in terms of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 dated 14.05.2008. Accordingly, this batch of Writ Petitions is allowed. No Order as to Costs. 10 17. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:17.04.2026 JKS L.R Copy to be marked. 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.Nos.12361 of 2008, 17653, 18553, 18554, 18555 & 18556 of 2009 and 23906 of 2010 Dt: 17.04.2026 JKS L.R Copy to be marked B/O : JKS