M/s. Srinidhi Oil Product v. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
WP/2878/2016 · 2026-01-07
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19409 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19409 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010151162016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 2878/2016 Between:
1. M/S. SRINIDHI OIL PRODUCT, LOLLUR (VILLAGE), SINGANAMALA (MANDAL), ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P., REP. BY ITS PARTNER M. SREEDHAR
...PETITIONER AND
1. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER/FINANCE, SREENIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI - 517503, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.
2. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OPERATION, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.
3. ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, RURAL WEST, APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.
4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER APSPDCL, SINGANAMALA, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.
5. ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER/ERO APSPDCL, SINGANAMALA, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA (SC FORAPSPDCL) The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms. Jyothi Ratna A, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.
2. Ms. Jyothi Ratna A, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Senior Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Anantapuramu. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record.
3. The Written Instruction would indicate that at present, the service of the Writ Petitioner does not have any liability, as the entire demand charges have been paid and therefore, no amount is pending.
4. Having recorded the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition as no further consideration is necessary. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt:08.01.2026 Vns