IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATt (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT r-. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SAT WRIT PETITION NOS: 18689. 25398 & 25399 OF 2020/ WRIT PETITION NO: 18689 OF 2020 Between: Movies Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Dharma M/s Jayam Teja R/o Door No. 48-14-71, Sri Nagar Donda Party. Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner AND of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Power 1. The State and Energy Department Secretariat, Amravati Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep 2. Eastern Power by its Chairman and Managing Director, Visakhapatnam 3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operations) APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam 4. Senior Accounts Officer Operation, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam 5. Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Visakhapatnam ...Respondents Petition under Article 226l)f the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus may declaring the action of of the power consumption in covid-19, for service connection the respondents in insisting the demand charges bills during the closure of the theatre NO.VSP918 of the petitioner theatre, as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and violative of ArticlesW, 19(1) (g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the disconnection No.SE/ONSP/SAO/AAO/JAO/HT/U1/D.No. 1608/2020, DT 20-08-2020 illegal, null void. - order in Letter as lA NO: 1 OF ?C)9ri Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to direct the praying that in the circumstances - in support of the petition, the High Court may be respondents to collect the actual consumption charges without including theatre service connection No.VSP918 normal demand charges from the petitioner during the closure of the theatre in covid -19 from March 2020 to October 2020, by restoring the power supply. and pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF Between; 1. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra f by Its Chairman and Managing Director, Visakhapatnam 2. The Superintendent Engineer (Operations) APEPDCL 3. Senior Accounts Officer Operation, APEPDCL, Pradesh Limited, Rep Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner/Respondent Nos.2 to 4 AND 1. M/s Jayam Movies Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Dharma Teja R/o Door No. 48-14-71 Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar Donda Party, ...Respondent/Petitioner' 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Power and Energy Department Secretariat, Amravati 3. Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Visakhapatnam ...Respondent/Respondents- 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 vacate the interim order dated 14-10-2020 in W.P.No. 18689 of 2020 and dismiss the Writ Petition. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI V.V.SATISH, SC FOR APEPDCL WRIT PETITION NO: 25398 OF 2020 Between: M/s Sree Rangamahal Theatre, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri.Chityala Lakshmi Narasimham, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Power and Energy Department Secretariat, Amravati. 2. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited by its Chairman and Managing Director, Eiuru. 3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Eiuru. 4. Senior Accounts Officer Operation, Eiuru. 5. Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Eiuru. Rep ...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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the demand charges of the power consumption bills during the closure of the theatre more in covid-19, for H.T. Service connection No.ELR.979 of the petitioner theatre, as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and violative of Articles14, 19(1) (g), 21 Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply to Consumer Number ELR979 immediately. 265 and 300-A of the lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondents to collect the actual consumption charges without including normal demand charges from the petitioner theatre H.T. Service connection No.ELR.979 during the closure of the theatre in covicL- December 2026^by restoring the power supply and 19 from March 2020 to pending disposal of the present Writ Petition lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep 1. Eastern Power Distribution by its Chairman and Managing Director, Eluru. Superintendent Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Eluru. 2. The 3. Senior Accounts Officer Operation, Eluru ...Petitioner/Respondent Nos.2 to 4 AND Rep. by its Proprietor Sri.Chityala 1. M/s Sree Rangamahal Theatre, Lakshmi Narasimham, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, ...Respondents/Petitioner' state of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, 2. The Veiagapudi, Amravati, Rep, by its Principal Secretary 3. Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Eluru. ...Respondent/Respondent under Section 15f CPC praying that in the circumstances of the petition, the High Court may be W.P.No.25398 of Petition stated in the affidavit filed in support pleased to vacate 2020 and dismiss the writ petition. the interim order dated 30-12-2020 in Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K DURGA PRASAD ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI V.V.SATISH, SC FOR APEPDCL WRIT PETITION NO: 25399 OF 2020 Between: M/s. Sree Seshamahal Theatre, Rep. by its Managing Partner C.H.R.J. Ramachandra Rao Salipet Village, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Power and Energy Department Secretariat, Amravati. 2. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Eluru. 3. The Superintendent Engineer, (Operations) APEPDCL, Eluru 4. Senior Accounts Officer Operation, Eluru 5. Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Eluru Limited, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction may more particularly one in die nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the demand charges of the bills during the closure of the theatre in covid-19, for H.T. Service connection No.ELR.616 of the petitioner theatre, as illegal, null, void and power consumption arbitrary and violative of Articlesl4, 19(1) (g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner.^ lA NQ: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondents to collect the actual consumption charges without including normal demand charges from the petitioner theatre H.T. Service connection No.ELR.616 during the closure of the theatre in covid - 19 from March 2020 to December 2020, by restoring the power supply, and pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: 1. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Eluru. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, (Operations) APEPDCL, Eluru 3. Senior Accounts Officer Operation, Eluru. ...Petitioner/Respondent Nos.2 to 4 AND 1. M/s. Sree Seshamahal Theatre, Rep. by its Managing Partner C.H.R.J. Ramachandra Rao Salipet Village, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District ...Respondents/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Velagapudi, Amravati, Represented by its Principal Secretary. 3. Joint Collector and Secretariat Licensing Authority, Eluru -Respondent/Respondentr' Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed r pleased to vacate the interim and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. APEPDCL praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be order dated 30.12.2020 in WP No 25399/2020 SRI K DURGA PRASAD 1:GP FOR ENERGY 2 to 5: SRI V.V.SATISH, SC FOR- The Court made the following: APHC010282992020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY M^IT PETITION NOs: 18689, 25398 in W.P.No.18689/20?n! Between: M/s Jayam Movies Private Limited [3331] SATTI OF 2020 ...PETITIONER AND ! he State Of Andhra Pradesh and Other Ln W.P.No.25398/2Q?n- ...RESPONDENT(S) Between: M/s Sree Rangamahal Theatre ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others in W.P.No.25399/202n- Between: ...RESPONDENT(S) M/s. Sree Seshamahal Theatre ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Counsel for the Petitioners: 1.KDURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR ENERGY 2.METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter in the above writ petitions is the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners - Theatres, represented by, Managing Director, Proprietor and Managing Partner respectively, filed the above writ petitions to declare the action of the authorities of the respective divisions of the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) in insisting the demand charges of the power consumption bills during the closure of the theaters in Covid-19, for H.T.Service connection Nos.VSP918, ELR.979 & ELR.616 of the petitioners respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to restore the power supply to the petitioners. 3. The averments in the affidavits, in brief, are that the theatres come under the category-li(A) of High-Tension (HT). Before the imposition of the lockdown by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the petitioners used to pay the consumption charges. During Covid-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Home Affairs, to prevent the spread of covid-19, imposed lockdown through order NO.4-3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020, incorporating a condition that in case of any violation of the order, the authority will proceed as per Sections 51 to 60 of the Disaster of Management Act, 2005 and also initiate legal action under Section 118 of IPC. The petitioners shut down the theatres in the interest of the public. The lockdown period was again extended by order dated 29.08.2020. 3 b) Despite the closure of theatres, the Corporation issued consumption charges bills. In July. 2020, the sub-ordinate staff took away the fuse connections due to non-payment of electricity consumption. Condition No.4.2.1.1, Category-ll (a); Commercial (ii) Major - HT, in Chapter-X Part ‘B’ of the terms and conditions of the Retail Supply Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2020-21 deals with i) the billing, and demand shall be the Maximum Demand Recorded during the month or 80% of the contracted demand, whichever is higher and ii) Energy charges will be billed based on actual Energy consumption or 25 KVAH for KVA of billing demand whichever is higher. The said proviso would apply in the case of the consumption of energy during normal days. Since the petitioners did not utilise the electricity during the lockdown, the Corporation is not entitled to collect minimum demand charges. c) 4. An interim order was granted on 14.10.2020, and on 30.12.2020, directing the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the petitioners, subject to the payment of 25% of the arrears. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the authorities of the respective divisions of the Corporation. It was contended, inter alia, that each consumer has an obligation to pay minimum charges irrespective of the utilization of power. The Discom is erecting and maintaining the poles and lines by spending crores of rupees, and hence, has been collecting minimum charges irrespective of consumption. If the petitioners intend to seek any relief regarding tariff, they must approach the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short ‘APERC’). 5. b) As per APERC /General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees- Appendix II A, even if no electricity is consumed, the minimum charges shall be payable. Bills were issued to the petitioners claiming monthly minimum charges. C) Clause 8.3.1 of general terms and conditions envisages that or any other sum, company may Code’ read with Section 56 in the event of default i in payment of charges of electricity other than charge for the supply of electricity due, the disconnect the supply following ‘Electricity Supply of the Electricity Act, 2003. d) There are huge raised the demand to the extent charges or penalties r has to pay interest at 18% writ petition. arrears from the petitioners. The authorities of the power utilised, and no additional are imposed. For the delayed payment the consumer on the arrears. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the 6. Heard Sri P. Raman, learned the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing learned counsel. counsel for 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contentions per the averments made in the affidavits, would contend Circular issued by the Central as that due to the Government, the petitioners’ theatres were Hence, directing the petitioners closed during the lockdown, monthly charges is illegal and arbitrary to pay minimum 8. Learned standing counsel, of the petitioners on the other hand, would contend that each agreement with the distribution minimum charges. He would also submit conditions and the Electricity Act, 2004). He would further of 2024, framed under Section 50 executed a separate company, agreeing to pay monthly that the bills were issued as per the terms and Supply Code (Regular Commission submit that of the per the Electricity Regulation No 5 zzi:zr — as for pay interest at 18%. In reply, learned counsels would request ot waive the interest at 18-/< and further submitted that the petitioners wil, pay the arrears 9. in 12 instalments. 5 Regarding payment of arrears in 12 instalments, this court records the statements of learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the agreements entered into by each of the petitioners with the Corporation for the supply of electricity. The agreements contain a clause regarding payment of minimum charges. Clause 5.9.12 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees envisages the agreement as provided in Appendix II (A). 10. Clause 10 of the agreement, which provides monthly minimum charges reads as follows; 11. “I/We shall pay minimum charges every month as prescribed in tariff, and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply even if no electricity is consumed for any reasons whatsoever and also if the charges for electricity actually consumed are less than the minimum charges for electricity actually consumed are less than the minimum charges. The minimum charges shall also be payable by me/us even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Company because of non-payment of electricity charges, Theft of Electricity or unauthorized Use of Electricity or for any other valid reason.” Thus, a perusal of clause 10 in the agreements entered into by the petitioners with the Corporation indicates that the petitioners are bound to pay minimum monthly charges, even in the absence of any consumption of electricity. Further, during the lockdown period, the Corporation maintained its infrastructure. Therefore, the order issued by the Government, vide No.4- 3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020, imposing lockdown, will not come in the way of the respondents in demanding minimum monthly charges either under the agreement or as per General Terms and Conditions etc.,. 12. Thus, the demand bills issued to each of the petitioners to pay the Minimum Monthly Charges, based upon the agreement and terms and 13. 6 conditions, can neither be declared as a nullity nor suffer from vices. However, the petitioners shall pay the arrears in 12 instalments, given the submission at the hearing. 14. Insofar as the interest is concerned, though the learned standing counsel would contend that, as per regulation No.5 of 2024, the Corporation entitled for interest at 18% per annum on the arrears, one should not be oblivious about the order issued by the Government vide order No.4-3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020, imposing lockdown. It is a fact that all the movie theatres were closed during the lockdown period. IS 15. Indeed, keeping in view the economic conditions during lockdown, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association(Registered) vs Union of India and Others', while dealing with the issue of whether there shall be waiver of compound interest/penal interest/ interest on interest, on loans during moratorium period, held as follows: 103. However, it is directed that there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium and any amount already recovered under the same head, namely, interest on interest/penal interest/compound interest shall be refunded to the borrowers concerned and to be given credit/adjusted in the next instalment of the loan account. Therefore, taking a clue from the above ruling, in the opinion of this Court, the claim of the respondents regarding 18% of the interest is on the higher side and the same is to be reduced. This court deems it appropriate that interest at 6% is reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of this Given the facts and circumstances of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 16. case. 17. (2021) 8 see 51 I 7 i)The petitioners shall clear the installments starting from May 2025, payable by the 10 succeeding month, ii) The petitioners shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears. If the petitioners fail to pay the arrears, as referred to supra, it is open to the Corporation to take steps as per the Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution Retail Supply Licensees, iii) There shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. arrears in 12 equal monthly of every th and OFFICER Sd/- //TRUE COPY// deputy SECTl 1. The Principal Secretary. State of Andhra Pradesh, Power and Energy Department Secretariat, Amravati. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Eluru 3. Thp Superintendent Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Eluru 4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, Eluru 5. The Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Eluru 6. One CC to SRI. K DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY , High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to SRI V.V. SATISH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR APEPDCL, [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies To, sree HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.18689, 25398 & 25399 of 2020 ^ 19 SEP 2025 ''■■rrentSectiojLX'l5' DISPOSING OF THE W.Ps. WITHOUT COSTS