APHC010668692013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 39429/2013 Between: 1. JAI HIND ROLLING MILLS INDIA (P) LTD.,, PLOT 27, PH 111, API1C IND. PARK, GOLLAPURAM, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DIST. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. PAWAN KUMAR DAHIYA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD., (APCPDCL) ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 3. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD., (APCPDCL) ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri V. Hemanth Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms. A. Jyothi Ratna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “It is 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 the action of the respondents in disconnecting the petitioner's power supply on 26.12.2013 as highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by an Order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court passed in W.A. No.115 of 2014 and batch, dated 01.05.2015. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the billing method adopted by the Official Respondents has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the Common Order in W.A. No.115 of 2014 and batch. She would also submit that aggrieved by the Order of the Division Bench, parties have filed SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are pending. She would also submit that there are no Interim Orders in the said SLPs and therefore the Respondents have adopted the billing method which is now introduced by them. 5. Since the present issue is squarely covered by the above-mentioned Order, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of 3 the Common Order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court dated 01.05.2015 in W.A. No.115 of 2014 and batch. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 01.05.2025 in W.A.No.115 of 2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. No order as to costs. 6. Needless to state that the case of the Petitioner shall also be finally governed by the outcome in the pending SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 18.08.2025 DSV