The 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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the action of lhe Respondents in imposing the penal charges for violation of Restriction and Control (RandC) measures in pursuance of the Proceedings No' APERC/Secy/16 t2O'12-13, dated 01-1 1-2012 including the penaltv of Rs' 73,24,O65t- for the period from Septembet, 2012 lo October, 201 3 is illegal and arbitrary (ii) declare that the Petitioner has not violated the Restriction and control (Randc) measures issued vide Proceedings No. APERC/Secyl1612O12- 13, dated 01-11-2012 with a direct'ron to the Respondents to withdraw the penal charges imposed on the Petitioner company and adjust the amounts paid by the Petitioner company without reference to the penal charges (iii) direct the Respondenls to restore the power supply to the Petitiorl( r company i'e ' M/s' K.R.PolymersPrivateLimited(S.C.No.HTNLG.74o)sitlrtedatGundrampally Village, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District LA. NO: 1OF 2O14{WPMP. NO: 22 OF 201 4) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in tht: :ircumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor rt may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the regular bills wilt lut reference to the Restriction and Control (R&C) measures, penal charges in pursuance of the Restriction and Control (R&C) measures imposed c / the APERC vide Proceed ings No. APERC/Se cy t 1 6t2O12-13' dated 01 -1 1 -2( 1 2 l.A NO:2 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 23 O 20't4l F petition under section 1 51 CPC praying that in thr: Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co rt may be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the power supply to th ) Petitioner company (S.C. No. HT NLG-740) situated at Gundrampally Villa ;e, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K. UDAYA SRI REP SRl. t SUDHEER RAO counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEIIHAR REDD\/ (sc FoR TELANGANA Tll \NSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOIT'BLE SRI WSTICE ITAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION IIo.l9 0F 2014 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging tJle illegal penaJ charges totaling Rs.73,24,065/- for September 2Ol2 to October 2013 and sought restoration of power supply. Despite multiple representatioris, power was not restored. The petitioner seeks a court order declaring the penal charges illegat, directing their withdrawal and adjustment of amounts paid, and restoring power supply immediately.

2. Heard Smt K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner, M/s. K.R. polymers pvt. Ltd., is that it is a registered company engaged in manufacture of HDPE/PP woven sacks at Gundrampalty Village, Nalgonda District. The petitioner initially had an HT-l connection with a Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 3SO KVA and a connected load of 600 HP. Subsequently, owing to expansion of operations, it applied for an additional CMD of 145 KVA, aggregating to 495 KVA, which was sanctioned vide proceedings dated 25. lO.2Ol2. The petitioner contends that it paid the 2 requisite development charges and securig deposit but the respondents failed to release the additional loa< and yet imposed penal charges allcging excess consumption :r violation of the Restriction and Control (R&C) orders of thr, Andhra pradesh Electricit5r Rcgulatory Commission (APERC) dat :d 0 1. 1 1, 2O 1 2.

4. Learned counsel for the respondeuts, .n their counter alfrdavit, submit that though the petitiorr:r,s request for additional CMD was initially processed, release of the additional load could not be effected due to the APERC,s R&C orders lhen in force, which prohibited enhancement of toad during the period of power shortage. Consequenfly, the petitioner,s sanctioned CMD continued to be 350 t(VA, and any consumption beyo-d that li,nit attracted penal charges in terms of APERC's directives. It is further submitted hat due to non- paJment of arrears exceeding Rs.89,OO,OOO /-, he power supply was disconnected on O1.08.2013. While APt). iC subsequently granted a 5O% r.r,,aiver on penal charges, tJre p,.titioner fajled to clear the balance dues, and hence is not entitt, d to any further relief.

5. Considering the submissions made by l oth the 1earned counsel and a perusal of the record, it is , .vident that the i I l 3 petitioner challenges the levy of penal charges of Rs73,24,O6S/_ for the period September, 2012 to Octobei,, 2018 and seeks restoration of power supply. It is not in dispute that the additional CMD of 145 KVA sought by petitioner was not released due to APERC's Restriction and Control Orders dated Ol.ll.2Ol2. Therefore, the sanctioned CMD remained 350 KVA, and consumption beyond that limit attracted penal charges as per APERC regulations. It may be noted that tlle ApERC has already granted a 5Oo/o waiver of the penal charges, providing substantial relief to the petitioner. The lery of such charges and disconnection of supply for non-pa5rment of dues cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed To, ***H'EiRlx /ITRUE COPY,, SECTION OFFICER 3ffi 33 ls SSl $ .'H3$E5[*1teoo69i3E FAR"""']NGANA TRANSCo) IOPUC] two CD CoPies 1 2 3 BM PMK ?r.tc.,. / / lHE S TA (r ( -)o a- * 5 'll8 2|l2r

2. c,}\ * Sp4 TC HIGH COURT DATED:16l0gl2025 ORDER WP.No.19 of 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITIIOUT COSTS o(^ ,q\-\x