Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35024 (AP)

M/S GLOBAL STONE CRUSHERS, PRAKASAM DIST v. CHAIRMAN, APERC, HYD & 4 OT

WP/38572/2012 · 2025-07-20

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010551042012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 38572/2012 Between: 1. M/S GLOBAL STONE CRUSHERS, PRAKASAM DIST, (ONG302) R.L.PURAM VILLAGE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT., REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NALLURI HANUMANTHA RAO S/O.GOVINDAIAH, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISION, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LTD., SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OPERATION CIRCLE, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., ONGOLE. 5. GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO GOVT., ENERGY DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 3. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri C.H.N. Mehar Baba, learned Counsel representing Sri Srinivas Rao Putluri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and Sri Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has 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 Standing Counsel would submit that insofar as the first quarter for the Financial Year, 2010-2011, the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that in respect of other periods, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sai 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. 3. 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. 3 (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 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.” 4. Learned Counsel for both sides have no objection for the disposal of present Writ Petition basing on the above directions of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34450 of 2012 and batch dated 09.12.2024. 5. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is 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. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 21.07.2025 Vns