Telangana High Court
M/S. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd., vs The Southern Power Distribution … on 17 December, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.33259 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_33259_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 09.10.2015
passed interim order in favour of the petitioner
observing as under:
“Notice before admission.
Post along with W.P. No. 30950 of 2014.
Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents, submitted that, in
identical matters, interim orders have been granted.
In view of the same, the respondents are
directed not to insist on furnishing of No Due
Certificate by the petitioner as a condition for
providing open access to it”.
4. It is represented by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the interim
order dated 09.10.2015 no further orders are
necessary.
SN, J
3 WP_33259_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