1 APHC010559852014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 645/2014 Between: 1. M/S. SIRI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. POTTEPALEM VILLAGE, NELLORE RURAL MANDAL, SRI PATTI SRIRAMULU NELTORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT. KOTESWARI, W/O. DR. I. V. KRISHNA REDDY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., NELLORE, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., NELTORE, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., NELLORE RURAL, SRI PATTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., NELLORE, SRI PATTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OPERATION CIRCLE, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD., NELLORE RURAL, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU 2 NELTORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: No representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. Ms. Mamatha Naidu Thota, learned Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL is present. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.53,817/- towards Fuel Surcharge Adjustment for the period December, 2010, January, 2011 and August 2012 to October, 2012, for an amount of Rs.25,190/-, for the months of February, 2011 and November, 2012 and for an amount of Rs. 14,947/ - for the months of March, 2011 and December, 2012, totaling an amount of Rs.93,954/- without raising any demand during the prescribed time is arbitrary, unreasonable and accordingly set aside the impugned proceedings of the 5th respondent vide Lr.No.AAO/EROR/NLR/JAO-II/NS/D. No.845/13, dated 26-12-2013 and consequently direct the respondents not to recover the alleged arrears of the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment ( FSA ) amount of Rs.93,954/- on the LT category service connection of the Petitioner unit No.1085 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3 3. The above extract would indicate that the Petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.53,817/- towards fuel surcharge adjustment for an amount of Rs.93,954/-. 4. It transpires from record that on the first date of listing i.e., 09.01.2014, this Court had shown indulgence by directing the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- as a condition for staying the demand raised by the Respondents in W.P.M.P.No.711 of 2014. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court took trouble of going through the case bundle whether the Petitioner has filed any receipt or proof evidencing the fact that he deposited the amount of Rs.40,000/- in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 09.01.2014. 5. On scrutiny, this Court did not find any material to indicate that the Petitioner has deposited the conditional amount of Rs.40,000/- and had not filed any proof to this effect. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:05.01.2026 Vns