Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6360 (AP)

Jai Hind Rolling Mills India (P) Ltd., v. The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd.,

WP/28079/2013 · 2025-07-29

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010058222013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 28079 OF 2013 Between: 1. Jai Hind Rolling Mills India (P) Ltd.,, Plot 27, PH 111, APIIC 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, (APCPDCL) Mint Compound, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chief Managing Director. 2. The Chief General Manager, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., (APCPDCL), 2nd Floor, Mint Compound, Hyderabad 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., (APCPDCL) Anantapur, Anantapur District 4. The Senior Accounts Officer Operation Circle, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., (APCPDCL) Anantapur, Anantapur District. 5. The Divisional Engineer Operation, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., (APCPDCL) Hindupur, Anantapur District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: D V NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondents:V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondents:O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI Counsel for the Respondents:JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL) The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: 2 Heard Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms. A. Jyothi Ratna, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief : “…..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 insisting upon the petitioner to switch over to 11 KV voltage supply for de-rating the petitioner's Contracted Maximum Demand from 2700 KVA to 300 KVA in terms of letter No.CMG/Coml/SE/(C)/ADE-III/D.No.1541/13 dated 30.07.2013 of the 2nd respondent as highly illegal arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to Proceedings No.APERC/Secy/08/2013 dated 17.04.2013 of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g),21 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's CMD at 33 KV voltage level with effect for 31.7.2013 in terms of letter No.CMG/Coml/SE/(C)/ADE- III/D.No.1541/13 dated 30.07.2013 of the 2nd respondent and pass such other orders or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 3. 3. Vide Interim Order dated 27.09.2013, Learned Single Judge of this Court (my predecessor) had directed the parties to maintain Status-quo. This Interim Order continued till date. 4. When this matter had finally come-up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Senior Accounts Officer, Operations Circle, APSPDC Ltd.,. Copy of it is also supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. The same is taken on record. 5. Relevant portion of the Written Instruction is usefully extracted hereunder: “Accordingly the consumer was insisted to change of Volt. Level from 33 kv to 11 kv. At present the consumer is at 6000 CMD and remaining at 33 kv Level. The service is not having any liability against the W.P.No.28079 of 2013. Sd/- Senior Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Anantapuramu.” 3 6. The above extract would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has upgraded his requirement to 6000 CMD and remaining at 33 KV Level and that there is no subsisting liability as against the W.P.No.28079 of 2013. 7. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this Writ Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. 8 .Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 30.07.2025 JKS 4 72 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 28079 OF 2013 30.07.2025 JKS