High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Man/amus dectaring the action of the respondents '1 to 3 in.not providing Load Factor incentive to the petitioner for the consumption month of January,2O10 in terms of the Tariff order for the year 2010-11 as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational, void if necessary by declaring Clause 2(1)(d) of the instructions of the 4th respondent communicated vide its letter No. APERC/E-205IDD-D|sU2009 dated 29.04.2009 in so far as it relates to ineligible to claim tariff incentives by the consumers who exceeded contracted maximum demand with the licensee Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D.V. NAGARJUNA BABU, REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Resl:ondent Nos.1 to 3:SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P. PRASAD, SC FOR TGE:RC Counsel for the Resl:ondent Nos.5 and 6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRITP ETITIO No. 10 L2 OF 2011 o RDER: Heard Sri D'V.Nagariuna Babu' learned senior designated counsel representing Sri G'Chandra Shakhar Rao, learned counsel aPPearing on behalf of the record, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy' learned petitioner on standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P'Prasad' learned standing counsel for TGERC appearing on behalf of the respondent No'4

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: ".........to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not providing Load Factor incentive to the petitioner for the consumption month of January' 2010 in terms of the Tariff order for the year 2010-11 as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational void' if necessary by declaring Clause 2(1)(d) of the instructions of the 4th respondent communicated vide its letter No' APERC/E-205lDD-Dist/2009 dated 29'04'2009 in so far as it relates to ineligible to claim tariff incentives I 2 lly t he consumers rnaximum demand who exceeded with the licensee. corrtracted

3. lhis_ Court vide ts order I.A.No,O2_ of 2011 tn WPMP. N o. t245 No. 10 a 1 of o a s di r the oet!!!qn b n su d r 15 .o

4.2O11 in 201 9 of o deri favo UT f "There shall be ir direction, as pra'/ed for, on condition or,nu't"t'' of tht_. amount r.r"ol""t'lilil",:::"r;:;: incenti,/e, within a period of four weeks from tod; y. "

4. ft is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf o,f the petitioner, tearned standing counsel appearing on beharf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and learned standing counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent No.4 that the present Writ petition could be disposed of rlirecting the petitioner to make a detailed representation putting_forth the grievance as put_forth in present Writ petition before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent shall consider the same in accordance to, law by giving an opportunity of personat hearing both to the petitioner and atso to the concerned 3 DTSCOM authorities within a pLiiod of (0a) weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders on the said detailed representation to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner to the 4th respondent herein' Taking into consideration the submissions made 5. by all the learned counsel on record and upon consent' theWritPetitionisdisposedofdirectingthepetitioner tomakeadetailedrepresentationputting-forththe grievance as put-forth in present Writ Petition before the 4th respondent within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the 4th respondent shall consider the same in accordance to law by giving an opportunity of personal hearing both to the petitioner and also to the concerned DISCOM authoritieswithinaperiodof(04)weeksthereafter and pass appropriate orders on the said deta'led representation to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner to the 4th resPondent' It is however observed that any amount paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim orders of this t { 4 Court sh;ril be subject to ihe outcome of decision to be taken in accordance to law on the subject issue by the 4th respondent, 6 With these above observations, , the Wit petition is disposr:d of. However, there shall be no orcler as to costs, As er sequel, the miscellaneous any, per dinry in the Writ petition shall also stand closr3d. petitions, if //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. JAYASREE STA NT REGISTRAR ASS I i $et TION OFFICER ,6" l,4sparyinQ Director, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd., Singareni Bhavan Red Hills, Hyderabad The Super ntendent Engineer, Operation, The Central Power t)istribution Company )f A. r. Ltd., Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. The Senio Accounts Officer, Operation, The Central Power D stribution Company ,;f A.,r. Ltd., Mahaboobnagar, [Vlahaboobnagar District. The Secre.ary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission,, Singareni llhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri G. Chandra Shakhar Rao, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to Sri l,l. Sreedhar Reddy, SC [OPUC] One CC to Sri [). Prasad, SC for TGERCIOPUC] Two CD C rpies; To,

2. J.

4. 6 B TJ GJP / I HIGH COURT DATED:05t02,t2025 : i , I I i t I I l I i I ORDER WP.No.10112 of 2011 rgF.- iTAr 6 o+ \ o o 02 ,lfl Z[25 t( 'r C i-\ ' '-rlf DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT I3OSTS // A 5 / /o