Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11527 (AP)

M/S. DRA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd

WP/40432/2017 · 2026-09-27

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010934342017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 40432/2017 Between: 1. M/S. DRA INDUSTRIES LTD.,, REGD OFF: 18/26, 1ST FLOOR, LOGANATHAN NAGAR, 2ND STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI- 600 094. HAVING ITS FACTORY AT APIIC INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT -II, ATTIVARAM VILLAGE, OZILI MANDAL, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT, NAIDUPET - 524 421. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER(ADMIN, HR&COMM) MR.S.K.RAHIMAN, S/O. KAMAL SAHEB. WITH SERVICE CONNECTION BEARING NO. HT.NLR-522. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, 19-13-65/A, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATI - 517503. 2. STATE LOAD DISPATCH CENTRE, TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED VIDYUT SOUDHA, GUNADALA, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, TIRUPATI. 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OPERATION CIRCLE , SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD, TIRUPATI. ...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 2 pleased toto pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not making settlement of energy and demand drawn under Open Access for the months of September and October, 2017 in terms of Long Term Open Access Agreement dated 28.02.2017 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, APERC (Interim Balancing & Settlement Code for Open Access Transactions) Regulation, 2006 and Retail Supply Tariff Order of 2017-18 issued by APERC besides violating petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to complete the settlement of energy and demand drawn under Open Access and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 50167 OF 2017 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 2nd respondent to forthwith communicate the 1st respondent the Open Access settlement data in pursuance to the scheduling of power for the months of September and October, 2017 under the Long Term Open Acess Agreement dated 28.07.2017 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 50169 OF 2017 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 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner company including disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's service connection HT.NLR-522 on account of demand of levy of energy and demand charges for the energy consumed under open access for the month of September, 2017 pursuant to Lr.No.SE /O /NLR /SAO /JAO-HT /U1 /D.No.1445 /17 dated 16.11.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 3. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) 4. JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI 5. 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.40432 OF 2017 ORDER: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and that the plant and machinery of the petitioner-company were subsequently acquired by another company in a bank auction. As of now the petitioner-company not in existences, due to which there are no specific instructions from the petitioner- company to prosecute the matter on merits. In view of the same, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. 3. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:-28.09.2026 BSM 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.40432 OF 2017 Date: 28-09-2026 W BSM