High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 o',f 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, order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- (a)Declaring that the condition imposed by .the 2nd Respondent in its e-mail dated 07.06.2022 for grant of open acoesd is arbitrary, perverse, irrational, arbitrary, unauthorized and illegal and (b)Declaring the rejection of the Petitioner's applications for standing clearance for lnter-state open Access for the months of July, August, and September,2022 as arbitrary, contrary to the CERC OA Regulation, 2008 and illegal and to set aside the same and (c)Directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners applications and issue No Objection / standing clearance for lnter state open Access strictly in terms of the CERC OA Regulation, 2008 without reference to the condition in the l l I I I I I I '.F*.ryf 2nd Respondents; e-nrail dated 07.06.2022 or any other cond tions not authorized by the Central Comnrission (d)and/or pass lA NO: 'l OF 2022:. Petition uncer riection '1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerj in support of the petition, the High court may be p eased to direct the respondents to cc nsider and allow the applications made by tl- e petitioner for No-objection Sl.andirr1l clearance for lnter State open Access without reference to the impugned crrnditicn prescribe by the 2nd respond in email darecoT -06-2022. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: Telangana state Soulhern Power Distribution company Limited, Ivlint compound, Secretariat Road. -lyclerabad, Represented by its lVaniging Director ...PETIT|ONERSIRESPONDENTS AND 1 VIS.PI Seloys Laboratories Ltd, IV/s. Dr. Reddys Laborat,rries Ltd.. Reod OH. 8-2-337. Road No ii Banjara Hiils, Hyderabad _ 500 034, nep b,,-iii nuitioirzea :iSiatgry, Sri Gooata Kiishna Gang'aveili. Having its Unit iisy r.ro +i-li,O ?o_ I?1:,-?*!y1,, Iy 'f, and .(l\{l t\/edchat-t\itatkajgiii District Tel'angana_500090. siervrce Conrre, )tio r No. t\,4CL-696. 2 S.tate Load Drspatr;lr Centre, Represented by its Chief Engineer, TSTRANSCO, Vidhyut SouCh.r, h hairatabad, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No.i Petition urder section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r; rpport of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 2glo9l2o22inwp. No. 37789 of 202'.2 and dismiss the writ petition. t IA NO..30F 2022 Between:

1. State Load Dispatch Centre, Represented by its Chief Engineer/SLDC' Vidhyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

2. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Mint. Comp-ound, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No. ...RESPONDENTS 3. lV/S. DR. Reddys Laboratories Ltd, Regd Otl. 8-2-337, Road-No 1 Banjara Hills, Hvclerabad - 5b0 034. Rep. bv its Authorized Signatory, Sri. Gopala Krishna c'r".r"..lti Havino its Unit'at Sv.No.4'l and 46-Part, Bachupally (V) and (M), tr4eOinal-trlattajgiri District, Telan!ana-500090. Service Connection No.tt4CL-696. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 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 vacate the interim orders daled 2810912022 in wP.No. 37789 0f 2022 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY' REPREENTING SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN CounselfortheRespondents:SRIN.SREEDHARREDDY,SCFORTRANSCO The Gourt made the following: ORDER ..frltEElFFGr *t i!"X --7 HON'I}LE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA llu TT PETITION No. 377A9 0F 2022 ORDER: Heard Siri Deepak Chowdary, learned counsel representing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the responde nts.

2. The petiltioner approached the Court ser_.king prayer as undor: " . ..io issue a writ, order or direction mor-e particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandarrrus- (a) t)ecia ring that the condition imposed by the 2.d Respondcnt in its email dated 07.06.2022 for grarrt Of opr)n access is arbitrary, perverse, irratiOnal, arbitrary, unauthorized and illeqal and; (b) Declaring the rejection of the petitirtner,s appli:ations for standing clearance for Inter-State Oper ,Aci:r:ss for the months of July, August and Septenrbr,rr, 2022 as arbitrary, contrary to t-he CERC OA Regu ,::ion, 2008 and illegal and to set aslcle the same a nd; (c) {)i"ect ng the Respondents to consider the Petiti3ner s applications and issue No Objection / Standing (llearance for Inter State Open Access strict y in terms of the CERC OA Reguiation 20Ci3 withoul rrrference to the condition in the 2"d I 2 email dated 07.06.2022 or any not authorized by the Central Respondent's other conditions Commission (d) and or pass......

3. This Court vide its order dated 2 .o9.2022 in I.A.No.O1 ot 2O22 in W.P. No. 37789 of 2022 oassed interim order in favour of the oetitioner observi no as "Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances, interim orders were passed by this Court in W.P.No.32503 of 2022 dated 30.08.2022. Hence, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider applications of the petitioners for No Objection/Sta nd ing Clearance for Inter-State open Access without reference to the impugned condition prescribed by the 2nd respondent in e-mail dated 07'06.2022. However, this order shall be subject to further orders in I.As and in the writ petitions."

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in pursuance to the Interim Orders of this Court dated 2A,O9-2022 passed in present W.P.No.37789 of 2()22 (referred to and extracted above), the respondents had considered the \ I -) the petittoner application of No ObjectionT'Sta nding Clearance for Inter-State Open Access rvithout reference to the impugned condition prescribed [1r7 the 2nd respondent in e-mail dated 07.()6.202'2 and hence, the cause of action itr the present Writ l>etition does not survive for adjudic:ation any morc!.

5. The ea-red counsel appearing on behalf ot the petitioner d,le:: not dispute the said submission made try the Iearned Stanc ing Counsel appearing on behalf respondents.

6. Bringing the said submissions of both the learned counsel appe:irring on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record, the writ petition is closed. However, therr: shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in 1.he Writ petition shall also stand closed. --l { //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO REGISTRAR ASSI ETAN'T 'sEclroN oFFtcER To,

1. 2. .7 One CC t,: Sri ( One CC t,c llri l''l Two CD CoPier; T G J JP )halla Gunaranian, Advocate [OPUC] . si""Jt']iin",jdv, Sc for TRRNSCoIOPUCI HIGH COURI' DATED:0810112025 ORDER .a:' WP.No.37789 of 2022 fr 4 qpir ZW l,r * D *o CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS / h / / I ,