IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4863 of 2008 Between: Agarwal Foundaries, Bashirabad, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep., by its Proprietor Sri Pramod Agarwal S/o. Sri Maniklal Agarwal, aged about 44 yrs, R/o. 2-1-113, Tobacco Bazr, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.P. Chandramouli Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4863 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice dated 22.02.2008 issued by respondent No.2. Heard Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A perusal of the record discloses that when the respondents demanded certain amounts towards voltage surcharge, the petitioner filed WP.Nos.11973 of 2004 and 11715 of 2005, which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge by common order dated 26.07.2007. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioner filed WA.Nos.688 and 745 of 2007. The Division Bench, which entertained WA.No.745 of 2007, passed order on 14.09.2007 to the following effect: “In the meanwhile, operation of order dated 26.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11715 of 2007 to the extent of making the appellant liable to pay surcharge in the event of maximum demand crossing 6000 KVA shall remain stayed.” Later the said order was modified by the Division Bench by order dated 14.09.2007 and the same reads as under: “We feel that interest of justice would be met, if the operation of the judgment dated 26.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.11715 of 2007 is suspended till the Writ Appeal is heard, as both the parties have complained against the said judgment. There shall be interim suspension of the operation of the judgment dated 26.07.2007 in WP.No.11715 of 2007, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Mr. N. Subba Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, however, submits that certain orders were passed by the writ Court at interlocutory stages, which may have effect. We do not think so because the orders passed by the writ Court at interlocutory stage get merged with the final order, and as such, after suspension of the operation of the final judgment dated 26.07.2007 of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.11715 of 2007, there remains no order of the court to be complied with by either of the parties.” As an offshoot of the said orders, the impugned notice is issued. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that appropriate remedy for the petitioner lies in moving the Division Bench before which the writ appeals are pending for appropriate orders, because validity of the impugned notice turns on the interpretation of the said orders. The writ petition is therefore disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy as observed supra. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6312 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.03.2008 ES