% I: APHC010762212013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESK^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) iS 30 lO ___ \o WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT , THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 33671 OF 2013 Between: 1. Kotipalli Srinivasa Rao S/o.K.Haribabu, Aged 41 years Businesss, R/o.Pandillapalti (PO), Vetapalem (M), Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh. 2. Samkey Prakasa Rao, S/o.Krishna Rao, aged 51 years, Hindu, R/o.Gundayapalem (V) Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, Hindu, A.P ...Petitioners AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory, Commission, rep by its Secretary, 5th floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500004 2. The A P Southern Power Distribution Co Ltd, Rep. by its Chairman, Corporate Office, Tirupathi (PO) Chittoor Dist A.P. 3. The Supreintending Engineer Operation Circle, APSPDCL, Ongole ' (town) Prakasam District. 4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer APSPDCL, Vetapalem (PO) & (M) Prakasam District A.P. ...Respondents 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 to issue an appropriate order, Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring that the action of the 2 to 4 respondents in levying penalties under R&C measures to a sum of Rs 25,10,013/-, disconnecting power supply to petitioners Prawn hatchery unit at RajuBangarampalem village, Vetapalem (M) Prakasam District with SC No / 870 LT III A category in the month of Feb 2013, collecting Rs 9,42,000/- in 3 monthly installments from him and demanding for payment of balance amount under the threat of disconnecting power supply again, as illegal, unlawful, void, in breach of statutory rules, more particularly against the orders passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No APERC/Secy/02/2012-13 dt 22-01-2013, wherein, the prawn hatcheries are totally exempted from the R&C measures upto 31-03-2013 and hence set aside the same in the interest of justice as the respondents are not permitted to levy penalties and collect the same from his prawn culture unit and to impose a heavy penalty of exemplary costs against 2 to 4 respondents for their unlawful action in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2013fWPMP 41903 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 to grant an interim direction by directing the respondents 2 to 4 not to disconnect power supply to Elec. SC No 870 of RajuBangarampalem (V) Vetapalem (M) Prakasam Dist., in respect of petitioners prawn culture unit till the final disposal of the Writ Petition interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G VENKATESHWARLU REPRESENTING SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI (SC FOR APERC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI ABDUL MATEEN REPRESENTING SRI V V SATISH (SC FOR APSPDCL) The Court made the following order: 9^ APHC010762212013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 33671/2013 Between: 1.KOTIPALLI SRINIVASA RAO S/O.K.HARIBABU, R/O.PANDILLAPALLI (PO) VETAPALEM (M) PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.SAMKEY PRAKASA RAO, S/0.KRISHNA RAO, R/O.GUNDAYAPALEM (V) NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER(S) AND REGULATORY, ELECTRICITY COMMISSION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, 5'"^ FLOOR, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD-500004 1.THE ANDHRA PRADESH 2 the A P SOUTHEM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, REP. BY ITS CORPORATE OFFICE, TIRUPATHI (PO) CHITTOOR CHAIRMAN DISTA.P. ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE, 3.THE SUPREINTENDING APSPDCL, ONGOLE (TOWN) PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER APSPDCL, VETAPALEM (PO) & (M) PRAKASAM DISTRICT A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1.P NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following; ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Narasimha Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, Ld. Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Putiuri, Ld. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri Abdul Mateen, Ld. Counsel behalf of Sri V.V. Satish, Ld. Standing Counsel for Respondent appearing on Nos.2 to 4. The Writ Petitioners herein have sought the following prayer; 2. “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring that the action of the 2 to 4 respondents in levying penalties under R&C measures to a sum of Rs.25,10,013/-, disconnecting supply to petitioners Prawn hatchery unit at power RajuBangarampalem village, Vetapalem (M) Prakasam District with SC No 870 LT III A category in the month of Feb2013, collecting Rs.9,42,000/- in 3 monthly installments from him and demanding for payment of balance amount under the threat of disconnecting power supply again, as illegal, unlawful, void, in breach of statutory rules, more particularly against the orders respondent in proceedings No 1 passed by the APERC/Secy/02/2012-13 dt 22-01-2013, wherein, the prawn hatcheries are totally exempted from the R&C measures upto 31-3-2013 and hence set aside the same in the interest of justice as the respondents are not permitted to levy penalties and collect the same from his prawn culture unit and to impose a heavy penalty of exemplary costs against 2 to 4 respondents for their unlawful action in the interest ofjustice and to grant any such other or further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. The case of the Writ Petitioners is that they have been granted a Prawn Culture Licence and, therefore, are entitled to exemption from the purview of the Restriction and Control (R&C) Measures issued vide Proceedings No. APERC/Secy/16/2012-13 dated 01.11.2012. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on the Proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission bearing No. APERC/Secy/02/2012-13 dated 22.01.2013 (Ex.P.5). In the alternative, learned Counsel would also submit that the Petitioners are entitled to 50% exemption by virtue of the Orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 08.08.2013 in Proceedings No. APERC/Secy/154/2013 (Ex.P.4). 3. 4. 5. This Court has perused the document relied on by the Writ Petitioners (Ex.P.5) dated 22.01.2013. On the face of it, the said Proceedings indicate that Prawn Hatcheries are exempted from the purview of the Restriction and Control Measures, whereas the case of the Writ Petitioners is that they have been granted a Prawn Culture Licence. This would indicate that the Petitioners would not be entitled to any exemption from the purview of the and Control Measures, vide Proceedings dated 22.01.2013 Restriction (Ex.P.5), inasmuch as the State Commission has granted the same only in favour of Prawn Hatcheries and not for Prawn Culture. It is also stated by the Official Respondents, on Instructions, that they did not find any Prawn Hatchery on the premises belonging to the Writ Petitioners. 6. This Court has perused the Proceedings passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission bearing No. APERC/Secy/154/201 3, dated 08.08.2018 (Ex.P.4). The said Proceedings would indicate that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, after having considered several aspects and parameters, had granted 50% exemption from the purview of the 7. ' ^ 4 Restriction and Control Measures. The relevant portion of the said Order is usefully extracted hereunder: “49. Considering these circumstances in which the whole process of introduction of R&C measures, failure of strict inspection, monitoring and enforcement by way of disconnection and serving notices by DISCOMs, erroneous interpretations and prolonged delays In levy of penalties, its excessive financial burden on consumers, the Commission has decided to waive penalties to the extent of 50% specified in the R&C orders. The relief thus provided is transparent, non- discrlminative and balanced. This is not an anticipated relief for any consumer. It Is not financially detrimental to DISCOMS as they do not incur any loss if 50% of penalty Is waived. Such financial mitigation to consumers thus is not bringing any financial loss to DISCOMS. 50. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives 50%) of penal charges for all consumers for whom R&C measures were made applicable vide Order Dt:07.09.2012 and all orders issued from time to time including the last Order Dt: 17.04.2013. 51. This is only one time waiver. 52. The refunds arising out of waiver of 50%) penalty shall not be refunded and the same shall be adjusted against future bills. 53. No interest shall be payable on any refundable amounts. 54. This part waiver shall not give any right to canvass for total waiver of penalty from the day R&C measures were Introduced. Since the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission has granted a blanket exemption of 50% under the purview mentioned in the above extract, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners are also entitled to similar relief as conferred by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in its Order dated 08.08.2013 (Ex.P.4). 8. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. 9. % 5 Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. 10. SDI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, KV AP Carbides Sub Station, Dinnedevarapadu Road, Kurnool - 518 002, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Chairman, A P Southern Power Distribution Co Ltd, Office, Tirupathi (PO) Chittoor Dist A.P. 3. The Supreintending Engineer Operation Circle (town) Prakasam District. 4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer APSPDCL, Vetapalem (PO) & (M) Prakasam District A.P. 5. One CC to Sri P Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Putiuri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri V V Satish (SC for APEPDCL) Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies Adjacent to 220/132/33/11 Corporate APSPDCL, Ongole TF <5^ HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 33671 OF 2013 PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS