APHC010054352013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOs: 35781/2013 and 35782/2013 WRIT PETITION NO: 35781/2013 Between: 1. M/S.MAKRO CAST (P) LTD.,, REP.BYITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FOUNDRY), M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, KOLAVENNU VILLAGE,KANKIPADU MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. A P ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, AP SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS,HYDERABAD 2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINERE OPERATION, APSPDCL VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OPERATION CIRCLE APSPDCL, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT 5. GOVERNMENT OF AP REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO GOVT, ENERGY DEPT., AP SECRETARIAT,HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the the orders in OP.No.67/12 dated 2.11.2012, OP.No.81/12 dated 12.3.2012 OP.No.14/13 dated 23.4.2013 OP.No.28/13 dated 29.6.2013 of the 1st respondent directing the licensees to charge theFeul surcharge Adjustment (FSA) to the financial year 2012-13 is illegal, arbitrary and also violative of ARticles, 14,19,& 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently , set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 44494 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 suspend the operation of the order in OP.No.67/12 dated 2.11.2012, OP.No.81/12 dated 12.3.2012 OP.No.14/13 dated 23.4.2013 OP.No.28/13 dated 29.6.2013 of the 1st respondent in so far as the petitioner H.T.Service Connection No.VJA 746 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 3. O MANOHER REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 35782/2013 Between: 1. M/S. MAKRO CAST (P) LTD,, REP, BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FOUNDRY), M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, KOLAVENNU (VILLAGE), KANKIPADU (M), KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A P ELECTRICTY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, A.P SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRUBTION COMPANY OF A P LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DIST. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEEROPERATION, APSPDCL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OPERATION CIRCLE,APSPDCL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 5. GOVERNMENT OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., ENERGY DEPT., A.P SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the the orders in O.P.Nos. 47,50,52,56/2012 dated 20.09.2012 of the 1st respondent directing the licensees to charge the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) to the fininical year 2011-12 is illegal arbitatry and also violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 44498 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 suspend the operation of the Order in O.P.Nos. 47,50,52,56/2012 dated 20.09.2012 of the 1st respondent in sofar as the petitioner H.T service connection No. VJA 746 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 3. O MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER Assailing the orders of the Regulatory Commission passed in O.P.Nos.67/2012, 81/2012, 14/2013, 28/2013, 47/2012, 50/2012, 52/2012, and 56/2012, the above writ petitions were filed. 2. The writ petitions were initially listed on 10.12.2013; no interim order was granted. 3. Heard S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Srinivas, learned standing counsel for Regulatory Commission, for respondent No.1 and Ms. Priyanka, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. 4. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that instead of determining the fuel charges for financial years, 2010-11 and 2011- 12, the learned Single Judge of the composite High Court upheld the decision of the Commission except for the first quarter of 2010-11. He would submit that when the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sai Bhaskar Iron Limited v. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others1, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Commission regarding fuel surcharge as also the formula in regulation 45-B. 5. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the decision of the Commission regarding fuel surcharges was upheld, there is no irregularity in the order passed by the Regulatory Commission in the aforementioned original petitions. Hence, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 10.07.2025 IKN 1(2016) 9 SCC 314 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOs: 35781 and 35782 of 2013 Date : 10.07.2025 IKN