IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20109 of 2007 Between: M/s.The Andhra Sugars Limited, Venkatarayapuram Tanuku, WEst Godavari District, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Managing Director. 2 Transmission corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus: (a) declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Interim Balancing & Settlement Code) Regulation, 2006 (2 of 2006) is not applicable to the Petitioner; (b) declaring that the Respondents are not entitled to keep the energy generated by the Petitioner from December 2006 in abeyance or treat the same s lapsed; (c) directing the Respondents to implement and continue to allow the facility of banking of electricity and the wheeling of electricity generated and banked electricity in accordance with the Power Wheeling & Purchase Agreement dated 05.01.1999; and (d) directing the Respondents to revise the bill for the month of August, 2007 duly taking into account the energy banked from December, 2006 and to consequently refrain from collecting the same from Petitioner after declaring the action to disconnect the power supply as being illegal and arbitrary and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR. O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20109 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the manufacture of sugar. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of banking of electricity pursuant to the Power Wheeling & Purchase Agreement dated 5.1.1999. The prayer in the writ petition may be extracted hereunder : (a) declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Interim Balancing & Settlement Code) Regulation, 2006 (2 of 2006) is not applicable to the Petitioner; (b) declaring that the Respondents are not entitled to keep the energy generated by the Petitioner from December 2006 in abeyance or treat the same as lapsed; (c) directing the Respondents to implement and continue to allow the facility of banking of electricity and the wheeling of electricity generated and banked electricity in accordance with the Power Wheeling & Purchase Agreement dated 05.01.1999; and (d) directing the Respondents to revise the bill for the month of August, 2007 duly taking into account the energy banked from December, 2006 and to consequently refrain from collecting the same from Petitioner after declaring the action to disconnect the power supply as being illegal and arbitrary and pass such further or other orders. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that W.P.No.15313 of 2007 and batch which was filed with an identical prayer were allowed by this Court by a common order dated 14.5.2008 thereby issuing a Mandamus to the respondents to permit the petitioners therein to use the banked energy in terms of the respective Clauses contained in their Agreements ignoring Clause 12.1 read with Appendix-x of Regulation 2 of 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to the extent of the energy which was banked prior to 31.12.2006 and not allowed to be utilized after rendering true and proper accounts to the petitioners and, consequently, revise the bills already issued after 31st December, 2006. The fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In the circumstances, in terms of the above order in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 and batch, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.11.2008 gbs