1 APHC010558232013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3608/2013 Between: 1. SAMEERA PAPER INDSTRY LIMITED,, 932/2, ALAMURU ROAD, MANDAPETA (P) & (M) E.G.DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI PALACHARLA SRINIVAS SO.PATTABHI RAMANA, AGED48 YEARS, HINDU, 1-15, K.P ROAD, MAREDUBAKA(V) MANDAPET (M) E.G.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SECRETARY A P ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, SINGERENI HAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 500004 2. THE A P EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD REP BY ITS, CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, NEAR GURUDWARA P&T COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM (PO) & DISTRICT 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE, APEPDCL, VLDYUTSAKHABHAVAN, VULLITOTA VEEDHI, GODAVARIBUND, RAJAHMUNDRY (PO) E.G.DIST 533 101 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNT OFFICER, 0/O. THE S.E/OPERATION CIRCLE, APEPDCL, VIDYUT SAKHA BHAVAN, VULLITHOTA VEEDI, GODAVARI BND, RAJAHMUNDRY (PO) E.G.DISTRICT 33 101. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 issue an appropriate order, Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents by imposing penalties under restrictions and control measures for continuously drawing electricity for the purpose of construction, trial runs of biomass cogeneration power plant at Mandapeta village & (M) E.G Dist as sanctioned by the competent authority, for the months of 9-2012, 10-2012, 11& 12-2012 included in the current bills, demanded for the payment of the same and collected the same under pressure, duress and compulsion and threat of disconnecting power supply, the amounts of (1) 2,24,835.19 (2) 5,32,220.61ps (3) Rs.15,76,151.12ps as paid by the petitioner under protest, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, in breach of contract, violation of the provisions of the law and more particularly, in terms of the revised order passed by the 1st respondent on 01-11-2012, set aside the same, consequently they are entitled to refund of the said amounts already paid by them IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 4474 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 grant interim direction to the respondents not to impose any penalties under R&C measures until the level of startup point of generation of electricity and synchronize the same into the 33KV lines of the respondents into the grid system since there is no requirement of drawal of power from the respondents to petitioners biomass unit after arriving at the above level of synchronization IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 7390 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 grant an interim order by directing the respondents 3 & 4 not to adopt coercive measures for the purpose of collecting this disputed amount of Rs. 26 lakhs by not disconnecting power supply till the disposal of the main W.P. in the interest of justice and to grant any other or further reliefs as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 3 IA NO: 3 OF 2013(WPMP 12643 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 grant an interim direction by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to accord permission to synchronize the power generated by petitioner's electricity unit to the common grid of the respondent pending disposal of the main W.P with reasonable terms regarding payment of the outstanding dues which are under dispute in the main Writ Petition as petitioner is ready to comply with such directions of this Hon'ble Court in order to avoid extreme hardship and loss of business sustained to his plant in the interest of justice and to grant IA NO: 6 OF 2013(WPMP 43939 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 41908 OF 2014 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 expedite the WP.3608 of 2013 and fix an early date for hearing the said Writ and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL) The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3608 of 2013 ORDER:- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “….to issue an appropriate order, Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents by imposing penalties under restrictions and control measures for continuously drawing electricity for the purpose of construction, trial runs of biomass cogeneration power plant at Mandapeta village & (M) E.G Dist as sanctioned by the competent authority, for the months of 9-2012, 10-2012, 11& 12-2012 included in the current bills, demanded for the payment of the same and collected the same under pressure, duress and compulsion and threat of disconnecting power supply, the amounts of (1) 2,24,835.19 (2) 5,32,220.61ps (3) Rs.15,76,151.12ps as paid by the petitioner under protest, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, in breach of contract, violation of the provisions of the law and more particularly, in terms of the revised order passed by the 1st respondent on 01-11-2012, set aside the same, consequently they are entitled to refund of the said amounts already paid by them….” 2. Sri P.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the petitioner is not inclined to pursue the present writ petition and he seeks permission to withdraw the instant writ petition. 3. Accordingly, recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 04.05.2026 RMR 5 25 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3608 of 2013 04.05.2026 W RMR