1 APHC010481762010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 29678 OF 2010 Between: 1.M/S. T.V.R. STEELS PVT. LIMITED,, IDA KONDAPALLI, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TATIREDDI MALAKONDAIAH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.A P ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2.SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LTD APEPDCL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OPERATION CIRCLE, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S APPADHARA REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 2.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3.O MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri C. Narendra, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Ch.N. Mehar Baba, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri Abdul Matheen, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V.Satish, Ld. Standing Counsel for the APEPDCL. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No. APERC/SECY.JT.DIR(TARIFF-ENGC) No. 05,06,07,08 dated 5-6-2010 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, unauthorized and contrary to Clause 45- B(4) of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulation No. 2/1989 and Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The above prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has challenged the Proceeding of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Respondent No.1) dated 05.06.2010 in Proceeding No. APERC/Secy./Jt.Dir (Tarrif- Engg.)/No.05. 4. The facts involved in the present case appear to be that the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission has allowed the claim of the Official Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by exercising its power under Regulation No.59 without having regard to the amendment brought-in to Regulation 45-B(4) of 3 the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 (herein after referred to as Business Regulations). 5. Sri Abdul Matheen, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has fairly agreed to this effect and has also placed on record that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is no more res integra in view of the Order passed by the Division Bench of the Erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission; (2012 SCC Online AP 801) (W.A.No.858 of 2011 and batch dated 20.01.2012). 6. He has also placed on record another Order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Nifty Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.P. electricity Regulatory Commission; W.P.No.28692 of 2010, by placing reliance on the Common Order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the Writ Appeal. 7. The Division Bench of the Erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the amendment made to Regulation 45-(B)(4) of Business Regulations is a special provision that had been brought into effect much later than Business Regulation No.59 and had applied the principle Generalibus specialia derogant (special things derogate from general things). The relevant portion of the Common Order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.858 of 2011 dated 20.01.2012 and batch is usefully extracted hereunder: “In the present case, as the special law, by way of the amended Regulation 45-B(4), made its advent into the Business Regulations long after the conferment of the general power on the Commission under Regulation 59 to enlarge/abridge the time stipulated, there can be no doubt that the later Regulation would prevail in the event of inconsistency. We are fortified in our view by the unequivocal observations made by the Supreme Court in Maya Mathews;(2010)4 SCC 498, that the special rule framed subsequent to the general rule would undoubtedly prevail. 4 As the amended Regulation 45-B(4) makes it explicit that failure to abide by the time stipulation contained therein enjoins forfeiture of future claims by the DISCOMS in that regard, it cannot be placed on par with the other Regulations which contain simple time stipulations unhindered by adverse consequences flowing from failure of compliance. The power of the Commission under Regulation 59 to enlarge time even after expiry of the stipulated time cannot therefore be extended to a situation covered by Regulation 45-B(4). The inevitable consequence flowing from the failure to abide by the time stipulation in Regulation 45-B(4) cannot be rendered nugatory by the Commission by allowing extension of time under Regulation 59. Permitting the same would render superfluous the forfeiture clause in Regulation 45-B(4). Had it been the intention of the Commission that its power under Regulation 59 should not be whittled down, it would have taken care to see that Regulation 45-B(4) was not worded in such absolute terms. In view of the clear and explicit language employed in the amended Regulation 45-B(4), the logical consequence would be that the power of the Commission under Regulation 59 would be eclipsed to that extent and situations covered by Regulation 45-B(4) stand excluded. This is the only manner in which the two Regulations can be harmoniously construed. We are therefore unable to agree with the learned Judge that nothing in the language of Regulation 45-B(4) precludes the Commission from extending the time prescribed therein by exercising power under Regulation 59. On the above analysis, we are of the opinion that in a situation covered by Regulation 45-B(4), it is not open to the Commission to step in and undo the irreversible consequence of the failure to abide by the time stipulation therein, i.e., forfeiture of future FSA claims by the DISCOMS for such period, by taking recourse to Regulation 59 of the Business Regulations. The Commission has no such power and must necessarily give effect to the forfeiture clause stipulated in the Regulation. Being an independent and autonomous body mantled with the balancing of consumers' interests with that of the DISCOMS in recovering the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner, the Commission cannot seek to favour one side as it has chosen to do in the present case. 5 In the result, we hold that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission has no power under Regulation 59 of the Business Regulations to enlarge the time stipulated in Regulation 45-B(4) thereof for the purpose of entertaining applications from the DISCOMS for determination of FSA. Such claims by the DISCOMS for the financial year 2008-09 are therefore hopelessly time barred.” 8. In view of the extract of the Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the dictum of the Division Bench. Therefore, this Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated by the Division Bench by setting aside the impugned Order dated 05.06.2010 in Proceeding No. APERC/Secy./Jt.Dir (Tarrif-Engg.)/No.05 (Ex.P.1). Needless to state that by setting aside the impugned Order, the consequences shall follow. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 12.08.2025 Mnr 6 89 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.29678 OF 2010 Dt: 12.08.2025 Mnr