HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P. No.525 of 2001 and C.M.A. Nos. 2790 of 2000; 1593, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1775, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1784, 1789, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800, 1813, 1906, 1910, 1918, 1964, 2065 of 2001; 713 of 2002; and C.C. No.1206 of 2004 W.P. No.525 of 2001: Between: M/s. Gayathri Agro Industrial Power Limited rep. through its Managing Director, T. Devender Reddy, Hyderabad .. Petitioner and Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP TRANSCO) rep. through its Managing Director and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.2790 of 2000 Between: Vamshi Industries Limited through its Managing Director M. Kesava Reddy, Hyderabad .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission through its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1593 of 2001 Between: M/s. Deccan Cements Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and APTRANSCO rep. by its Chairman And Managing Director, Hyderabad .. Respondent C.M.A. No.1747 of 2001 Between: M/s. Goldcrest Power & Projects Limited, rep. by its Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1748 of 2001 Between: M/s. Pioneer Energy Corporation Limited Rep. by its Liaisoning Officer, Hyderabad .. Appellant and The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1749 of 2001 Between: M/s. Kurnool Power Projects Ltd., rep. by its Director (Commercial), Hyderabad .. Appellant and The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1750 of 2001 Between: M/s. Inden Power International Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1751 of 2001 Between: M/s. V.S.L. Power India Limited rep. by its Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1752 of 2001 Between: M/s. Vashista Power Limited rep. by its Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1770 of 2001 Between: Weizmann Ltd., rep. by its Executive, Hyderabad Branch P.V. Laxminarayana .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1771 of 2001 Between: RPP Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1772 of 2001 Between: Espar Pak Ltd., rep. by its Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1773 of 2001 Between: Shivani Power Spinners Ltd., rep. by its Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1775 of 2001 Between: SKJ Power Projects Ltd., rep. by its Joint Managing Director, Secunderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1777 of 2001 Between: Tirumala Hydel Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1778 of 2001 Between: Akshay Profiles (P) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1779 of 2001 Between: Sri Jayalakshmi Powercorp Ltd., rep. by its Accounts Officer, Guntur .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1780 of 2001 Between: Sri Dhanalakshmi Cotton & Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Chilakaluripeta .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1781 of 2001 Between: PMC Power Pvt. Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director, Secunderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1784 of 2001 Between: Janapadu Hydro Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Executive Director, Guntur .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1789 of 2001 Between: M/s. Sagar Power Limited, Hyderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and three others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1792 of 2001 Between: M/s. Tamilnadu Wind Farms Limited rep. by Its Authorised Signatory, Chennai .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1793 of 2001 Between: M/s. Wescare (India) Limited rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1794 of 2001 Between: M/s RCI Power P. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1800 of 2001 Between: M/s. Matrix Power (Pvt) Limited, Hyderabad and others .. Appellants and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and three others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1813 of 2001 Between: M/s. Sudha Agro Oils and Chemical Industries Limited, Samalkot rep. by its Managing Director .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1906 of 2001 Between: S L S Power Limited rep. through Its Managing Director, Nellore .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and four others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1910 of 2001 Between: M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Tirupathi .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1918 of 2001 Between: Renewable Energy Systems Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Secunderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.1964 of 2001 Between: M/s. Gayathri Agro Industrial Power Limited rep. through its Managing Director, Hyderabad .. Appellant and A. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and three others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.2065 of 2001 Between: Sri Vasavi Industries Ltd., Hyderbad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and three others .. Respondents C.M.A. No.713 of 2002 Between: GMR Technologies & Industries Limited, Hyderabad .. Appellant and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad and three others .. Respondents C.C. No.1206 of 2004 Between: M/s. Gayathri Agro Industrial Power Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad .. Petitioner and Mrs. Rachel Chatterjee, Chairman & Managing Director AP Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited having its Office Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents DATE: 02-07-2007 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) As all the matters involve a common question, they are being heard and decided together at the request of the counsel for all the parties. The orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad in suo-motu proceedings initiated by it after notice to 141 power project developers of non-conventional energy development projects directing all the generators of the non-conventional energy to supply power generated by them to APTRANSCO and not to sell to third parties at the purchase price of Rs.2.25 per unit with 5% escalation per annum with 1994-95 as the base year, led to the challenge by the aggrieved developers in this batch of cases. The impugned orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission are the subject of the orders of interim suspension in all the matters which continued to be in force up to date. Sri K. Gopal Choudary and other learned counsel for the developers relied on R.V.K. Energy (P) Limited, Hyderabad v. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and another[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court held: “It is a factual position that APTRANSCO at present is only a licensee, who supplies the energery (energy) to all the consumers. If the APTRANSCO is in debt trap, it cannot be made financially healthy at the cost of the appellants. There is also a covenant in the agreement between the power generating companies and the APTRANSCO that they would sell the surplus energy to the APTRANSCO only. To that extent, the APTRANSCO is made financially healthy by the private Power Generating Companies and the APTRANSCO has also entered into an agreement with the Power Generating Companies, which is called wheeling agreement, by which APTRANSCO is supported financially by Private Power Generating Companies as the private Power Generating Companies have no independent network and therefore, they are required to use the network of supplying electricity, which is established by APTRANSCO in the State. Thus, it will not be open for the Regulatory Commission to say that whatever the power generated by the private Power Generating Companies have to be sold only to the APTRANSCO”, and desired the impugned orders to be set aside. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and other learned counsel for the opposing parties contended that in view of Section 185 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 making the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 applicable only to the extent of absence of inconsistency with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 providing for open access, the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission under challenge became redundant and infructuous and there is no need to go into the merits of the matter. It was also submitted that a number of developers/generators had, in fact, later entered into voluntary agreements with APTRANSCO regarding the sale of power generated by them. The impugned orders were passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in the background of the statutory environment as existing then in the light of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 read with such of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 that governed the situation then. However, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 stood repealed by Sub-Section (1) of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 save as otherwise provided by the later Act and the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 itself shall apply only to the extent of its provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in view of Section 185 (3) thereof. It is rather admitted that the impugned orders with reference to the statutory provisions then in force restricting the sale of energy produced by the non- conventional energy developers only to the APTRANSCO are plainly inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Irrespective of the legality or justification of the orders at the time when they were passed, they cannot govern the field after the Electricity Act, 2003. As such, the merits of the rival contentions of the parties in these matters need no further probe in depth, as the impugned orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission have become redundant. In the result, all the civil miscellaneous appeals, the writ petition and the contempt case are disposed of without costs as unnecessary and infructuous without prejudice to the continuance of the status-quo obtaining as on today concerning the sale of power or its price as enabled by the interim suspension of the impugned orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission during the pendency of these proceedings and also by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further without prejudice to any agreements entered into by any of the generators of the non-conventional energy with APTRANSCO in the meanwhile. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-07-2007 Svv [1] 2002 (3) ALD 196 (DB)