IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1156 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28.09.2007 in W.P.M.P.Nos.24159 and 24160 of 2007 in W.P.NO.18802 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: NCS Sugars Limited, Regd.Office 405 & 408, Minar Apartments, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-1, represented by its Chief General Manager V.Tulasi Raj. ...APPELLANT AND 1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., represented by the Chairman & managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 Eastern Power Distribution Companyof Andhra Pradesh ltd., (APEPDCL) rep., by the Superintending Engineer, Operational Circle, Vizianagaram. 3 The Chief General Manager, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, APEPDCL, Vizianagaram. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1156 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides and at their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant-writ petitioner, by way of this appeal, seeks to assail the common order passed on 28.09.2007 by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.Nos.24159 and 24160 of 2007 in W.P.No.18802 of 2007. The main question involved is in regard to the levy by the respondents herein in regard to the consumption of the electricity. Though the facts and circumstances indicate the chequered events, which led to ﬁling certain appeals pending before the Supreme Court, the fact remains that subject to change of law, the present proceedings came up. By taking into consideration various facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge granted interim stay subject to the following conditions. (1) For the bills already issued, the petitioner shall pay 50% of the grid support charges and give bank guarantee for the remaining 50% charges. (2) For the future bills to be raised, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the grid support charges as and when bills are raised and continue to give bank guarantee for the remaining 50% of the grid support charges. As per the ﬁrst condition, as stated above, there is no dispute. However, the appellant is aggrieved of the second condition. Hence, the appeal. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since all the questions had to be gone into in the Writ Petition; we refrain to go into the same in a Writ Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that he is prepared to deposit 25% of the balance of 50% by furnishing bank guarantee and the Writ Petition itself can be taken up for final hearing. Having regard to the oﬀer made, we deem it appropriate to modify the second condition passed by the learned Single Judge only to the extent of furnishing bank guarantee of 25% of the balance 50% and the appellant shall pay the other 50% of the amount. Oﬃce is directed to post the Writ Petition for “Final Hearing” subject to “Part-Heard” on 15.10.2008 before the regular Court hearing the matters. Learned counsel for the appellant herein submits that the aforesaid conditions have been complied with till August 2008. Hence, the above order passed by this Court shall be operated only from September 2008 onwards. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 23rd September 2008 RRB