Telangana High Court
Authorised Signatory Dr. Reddys … vs M.D., Apcpdcl., Hyd And 4 Ot on 17 December, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.6947 OF 2014
ORDER:
Heard Sri M/s. CKR Associates, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri R. Vinod
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri P.
Anand Seshu, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL,
appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri P.
Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State
Electricity Regulatory Commission, appearing on behalf
of respondent No.5.
2. The petitioners 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 1 to 3 in not
wheeling the units generated by the 2nd petitioner to
the 1st petitioner company in terms of the wheeling
schedule submitted by the 2nd petitioner as per
Power Wheeling & purchase Agreement dated
04.11.1994 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the
SN, J
2 WP_6947_2014power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement and
provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 besides
violating the petitioners’ right guaranteed under
Articles 14 & 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India
and to pass…”.
3. This Court vide its order dated 13.03.2014 in
W.P.M.P. No. 8596 of 2014 passed interim order in
favour of the petitioners observing as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners filed
memo dated 12.03.2014 issued by the respondents,
granting facility of open access to dedicated and
express feeders up to 33 KV level.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also
submits that in similar circumstances, this Court
allowed W.P. No. 33955 of 2011 on 27.03.2012.
In view of the same, there shall be interim
direction as prayed for”.
4. It is represented by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that by virtue of the interim
order dated 13.03.2014 in W.P.M.P. No.8596 of 2014
no further orders are necessary.
SN, J
3 WP_6947_2014
5. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent 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