M/s. Worldwide Diamond Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company Of A.P Ltd
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Electricity Act, 2003 s. 127
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in assessing the petitioner to the back billing dues from June 2001 to September 2004 amounting to Rs12,10, 245/- vide impugned proceeding No.DE/O/Z - II/ Vishakapatnam/ D.No. 996/05 dated 14. 03 . 2005and the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the appeal vide impugned proceeding No. SE/O/VSP/AE/T2/F.21/D.No. 711/05 dated 31-03-2005 as arbitrary and illegal, being contrary the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 by way of issuance of a writ order or direction ,one more particularly one in the nature or writ of Mandamus and consequently direct the Respondents 1to 4 to forbear from collecting any dues on account of back billing and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.SREERAMULU REDDY The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
ORAL ORDER:.
Operative part
Heard both sides and at their request, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The main question raised in this writ petition is with regard to the proportion of usage of the power i.e., between production and lighting and ancillary activities of the petitioner-Unit. The same is being disputed by the petitioner on several grounds. But, there is a right of appeal under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Section 127 of the Act, postulates that an appeal can be filed subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal after complying with the conditions mentioned under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act. At this juncture, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an appeal had already been filed, but the same is not entertained because of non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in Section 127 of the Act. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to comply with the said conditions within a period of eight weeks from today in order to enable the appellate authority to entertain the appeal, and whereby all the questions raised in the Writ Petition can be agitated and to be answered by the appellate authority. However, it is made clear that in the meanwhile, there shall not be any disconnection. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ D.S.R. VARMA, J DATED: 13.04.2005 Ka Note: Furnish copy in two days. B/o ka To 1 M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company Of A.P Ltd, Operation Zone II, Kncharapalem. Visakhapatnam. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation: Visakhapatnam, Eastern Power Distribution Company Of A.P. Ltd, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Divisional Engineer , Operation, Zone II, Eastern Power Distribution Company Of A.P Litd, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer Distribution Sub Division Gajuwaka Eastern Power Distribution Company Of A.P Litd, Visakhapatnam.
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 127.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 13 Apr 2005. The bench was D S R VARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.