APHC010724622013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13818/2013 Between: 1. SANDHYA SPINNING MILL LTD.,, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT GOPINENIPALEM VILLAGE, VATSAVAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT AND REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO47, P.S.K. NAGAR, RAJAPALAYAM 626108, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI S. KANTHIMATHINATHAN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDENT AT ILANJI POST, TENKASI TALUK,TAMILNADU. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., OPP. PWD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA. 3. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, #11-4-660, 4TH FLOOR, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 500004. 4. ANDHRA PRADESH GAS POWER CORPORATION LTD, #201, 2ND FLOOR, MY HOME SAROVAR PLAZA, SECRETARIAT ROAD, HYDERABAD - 500 063 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT(S): SRS,J W.P.No.13818 of 2013 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of mandamus :- (a) declaring the ri Respondent's proceedings in Lr. No. APERC/E-205/ DD-Dist/2010 dated 06.05.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and contrary to law and to set aside the same; and consequently and/or otherwise (b) declaring the demands of the 1st Respondent for regular demand charges and penal demand charges for the billing months of November 2012 subsequent months to be erroneous, illegal and contrary to law and to set aside the same and to direct the 1 st / 2nd Respondents to forbear from making such erroneous demands for regular demand charges and penal demand charges; and (c) directing refund of any of any amounts paid by the Petitioner in the meantime pursuant to impugned demands or basis or orders under coercive threats or otherwise together with compensatory interest; and (d) declaring the action of the 1st / 2nd Respondents and/or their officers in threatening disconnection of electricity supply without notice as required by law as being violative of Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 and to direct the said Respondents to forbear from such illegal coercive threats and/or action with strict compliance with the requirements of law; (e) and / or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 16908 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 direct the 1st / 2nd Respondent and its Officers not to take any coercive or other measures for recovery of regular demand charges and/or penal demand charges by applying the methodology or pursuant to the directions of the 3rd Respondent in Letter No APERC/E-205/ DD-Dist/2010 dated 06.05.2010 and/or to stay the operation of the said impugned order dated 06.05.2010 and the consequent demands; and / or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KATRAGADDA GOPAL CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 2. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM 3. JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI SRS,J W.P.No.13818 of 2013 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Smt. V. Kranthi, learned counsel representing Sri K.Gopal Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition has been filed to declare 1) the proceedings vide Lr.No. APERC/E-205/DD-Dist/2010 dated 06.05.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent; 2) the demands of 1st respondent for regular demand charges and penal demand charges for the billing months of November, 2012 subsequent months to be erroneous; 3) the action of respondents 1 and 2 and/or their officers in threatening disconnection of electricity supply without notice as required by law as being violative of Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, etc., and 4) to direct refund of any of the amounts paid by the petitioner in pursuance of impugned demands or basis or orders under coercive threats or otherwise together with compensatory interest. 3. The writ petition was listed on 30.04.2013 and an interim order was granted in WPMP No.16908 of 2013 which reads as under: “Subject to payment of 50% of the amount due, the APSPCDL shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. Any amounts already paid by the petitioner in this regard, shall be duly adjusted against the amount payable under this order.” 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, both the learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 06.04.2016 in W.P.No.14565 of 2010 passed by the learned single Judge of the composite High Court. 5. In W.P. No. 14565 of 2010, an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission vide Lr. No. APERC/E-205/DD-Dist/2010 dated 06.05.2010, was under challenge. The said writ petition was allowed, SRS,J W.P.No.13818 of 2013 the proceedings were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission for fresh disposal. The learned Single Judge observed that the impugned order had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party, and accordingly, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, as per law. 6. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 06.04.2016 in W.P. No.14565 of 2010. The proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Lr. No. APERC/E-205/DD-Dist/2010 dated 06.05.2010, impugned in the writ petition are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Regulatory Commission. It is also noted that the petitioner, in compliance with the interim order dated 30.04.2013, has deposited the amount. 7. When the court posed a question regarding the stage of the matter earlier remitted, both counsel pleaded ignorance. The learned Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is directed to dispose of the same as per law, expeditiously. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 24.06.2025 IKN SRS,J W.P.No.13818 of 2013 198 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13818 of 2013 Dated 24.06.2025 IKN