Telangana High Court
M/S Navadurga Billets P Ltd. Mbn725 vs The Southern Power Distribution … on 17 December, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.36754 OF 2015
ORDER:
Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R. Vinod
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri N.
Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri P. Prasad, learned
Standing Counsel for Telangana State Electricity
Regulatory Commission, appearing on behalf of
respondent No.6.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking
prayer as under:
” …to issue a writ or order of direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in insisting
upon the petitioner to get No Dues Certificate from
1st respondent for availing open access power as
highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and ultra vires of
Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the
provisions of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory
SN, J
2 WP_36754_2015Commission (Terms and Conditions of Open
Access) Regulation, 2005 and also violative of
petitioner’s Fundamental Rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of
India…”.
3. This Court vide its order dated 12.11.2015 in
W.P.M.P. No. 47329 of 2015 passed interim order in
favour of the petitioner observing as under:
“Heard counsel for petitioner, and standing
counsel for respondents.
Having regard to the fact that in similar
matters interim directions have been granted, there
shall be interim direction to the respondents not to
insist the petitioner on furnishing of ‘No Due
Certificate” as a condition precedent while issuing
Standing Clearance/No Objection Certificate for
providing open access to petitioner”.
4. It is represented by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the interim
order dated 12.11.2015 in W.P.M.P. No.47329 of 2015
no further orders are necessary.
SN, J
3 WP_36754_2015
5. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 does
not dispute the said submission made on behalf of the
petitioner.
6. Bringing the said submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record,
the writ petition is closed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if
any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 17.12.2024
Skj