1 APHC010612802012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39352/2012 Between: 1. M/S.RAJAM POLY PACKS PVT.LTD, (JUTE DIVISION) MOGILIVALASA VILLAGE, RAJAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. G. CH. VENKATA RAJU ...PETITIONER AND 1. SECRETRAY APERC 4 OTHERS, SECRETARY, A.P. SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LIMITED, (APEPDCL) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE THE, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, (APEPDCL) SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OPERATION CIRCLE THE, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, (APEPDCL) SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 5. GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO, GOVT., ENERGY DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring orders in O.P. Nos. 29, 33, 37 & 41/2012 and O.P. Nos. 45, 49, 53 & 59/2012" dated 20th September 2012 of 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Condition No. 6 of the Draft A.P.E.R.C. (Conduct Business) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2006 and also violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and pass such other orders or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 49972 OF 2012 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 suspend the operation of the orders in O.P. Nos. in O.P. Nos. 29, 33, 37 & 41/2012 and O.P. Nos. 45, 49, 53 & 59/2012, dated 20th September 2012, of the 1st respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WVMP 802 OF 2013 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 vacate the interim orders passed on dated 21-12-2012 In W.P.MP.NO 49972 OF 2012 IN W.P.No.39352 of 2012 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39352 of 2012 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: <… to issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring orders in O.P. Nos. 29, 33, 37 & 41/2012 and O.P. Nos. 45, 49, 53 & 59/2012" dated 20th September 2012 of 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Condition No. 6 of the Draft A.P.E.R.C. (Conduct Business) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2006 and also violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and pass such other orders or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…= 2. Heard Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned counsel representing Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Sri Abdul Mathin, learned counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL. 3. The counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Abdul Mathin, learned Counsel for APSPDCL jointly placed reliance on the Common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34450 of 2012 and batch dated 09.12.2024. Learned Counsels would submit that insofar as the first quarter for the Financial Year 2010-2011, the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sri Abdul Mathin, learned Counsel would submit that in respect of other periods, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sai 4 Bhaskar Iron Ltd., vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors: (2016) 9 SCC 134 governs the field and therefore, for such of the periods, the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already been implemented. 4. As such in the identical facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 09.04.2024 disposed of batch of cases. In view of the above undisputed facts as well as law, this Court is constrained to dispose this batch of writ petitions which are identical in nature in the very same terms. 5. Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34450 of 2012 and batch had taken note of the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court insofar as the first quarter of the financial year 2010- 2011 is concerned and had issued the following directions: (1) The orders dated 20.09.2012 of the Commission pertaining to the FSA for the 1st quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 shall not be enforced on any of the consumers of the four DISCOMs, till disposal of the SLPs pending before the Supreme Court. (2) The enforceability or otherwise of the orders of the commissions for the 1st quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 shall depend on the result of the SLPs. (3) In the event of the Supreme Court confirms the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.09.2012, the FSA for the 1st quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 will become unenforceable. In a converse situation, the petitioners shall be entitled to question the 5 orders of the Commission in respect of both the financial years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. (4) If any of the DISCOMs have collected the FSA for the first quarter of the financial year 2010-2011 from any consumers, including the petitioners, they shall adjust the same in the future electricity bills immediately falling due. This adjustment shall also be subject to the outcome of the SLPs pending before the Supreme Court.” 6. Learned counsel for both sides have no objection for the disposal of present Writ Petitions basing on the above directions of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34450 of 2012 and batch dated 09.12.2024 of this Court. 7. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the above extract in W.P.No.34450 of 2012 and batch dated 09.12.2024. No order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 10.04.2026 RMR Note: Registry is hereby directed to enclose a copy of orders dated 09.12.2024 made in W.P.No.34450 of 2012 and batch along with the copy of instant orders. 6 78 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39352 of 2012 10.04.2026 W RMR