MAHRISHI ALLOYS PVT.LTD.,HINDUPUR. v. A.P.E.R.C.,HYDERABAD, & ANR.
WP/3621/2014 · 2025-07-10
Subba Reddy Satti
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20967 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20967 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010294922014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3621/2014 Between:
1. MAHRISHI ALLOYS PVT.LTD.,HINDUPUR., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3, 3RD CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT MODA VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI ROAD, HINDUPUR- 515 212, REP. BY SRI K.B.SHREENATH, S/O.K.V. BHAGAWAN IYENGAR, ITS CHIEF -CEVKAUTLE OI-PCCAL , WITH SERVICE CONNECTION NO. ATP 031
...PETITIONER AND
1. A P E R C HYDERABAD ANR, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF, ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., MINT COMPOUND, SECRETARIAT ROAD, HYDERABAD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of mandamus :- (a) declaring the orders passed by the 1st Respondent Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P. Nos. 44 to 47 of 2012, O.P. Nos. 48 to 51 of 2012, O.P. Nos. 52 to 55 of 2012, O.P. Nos.
56 to 59 of 2012, all dated 20.09.2012, determining the fuel surcharge adjustment for the four quarters of 2011-2012, as being illegal, null and void being violative of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, irrational,
2 SRS, J W.P.No.3621 of 2014
unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of the Regulations and law and/or otherwise contrary to law and to set aside the same; and/or (b) directing the said Respondents to forbear from demanding and collecting any amounts towards fuel surcharge adjustment for 2011-2012 in pursuance thereof or in pursuance of the impugned orders of the 1st Respondent Commission dated 20.09.2012 or otherwise, and to further direct them to forthwith refund and/or adjust in future consumption bills all amounts collected or adjusted in respect of the same; and (c) granting and directing all consequential relief;
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 4454 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 to direct the Respondent distribution licensee(s) not to demand or collect any amounts towards fuel surcharge adjustment for the year 2011-2012 pursuant to any of the impugned orders of the 1st Respondent Commission dated 20.09.2012 or otherwise, and not to disconnect electricity supply or take any coercive step whatsoever for non-payment of any such amounts or for adjustment in subsequent bills of payments of such amounts; pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)
The Court made the following order:
Heard Sri Umar Abdullah, learned counsel representing Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Both learned counsel would submit that in respect of the 1st quarter of the financial year 2011-12, S.L.P.No.13878 of 2012 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and is still pending. In respect of other
3 SRS, J W.P.No.3621 of 2014
quarters, the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sai Bhaskar Iron Ltd. Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission1.
5. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner paid the entire amount.
6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is
disposed of, with the following directions: 1) The petitioner is allowed to agitate his claim relating to the 1st quarter of 2011-12, subject to the outcome of the S.L.P., which stood pending before the Apex Court. 2) In respect of other quarters, given the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sai Bhaskar Iron Ltd. (stated supra), no further adjudication is required. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Dated: 11.07.2025
MJA
1 2016 (9) SCC 134
4 SRS, J W.P.No.3621 of 2014
396
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 3621 of 2014
Dated 11.07.2025 MJA