HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13350 OF 2002 DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. BETWEEN M/s. V.V. Projects and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kurnool, rep. by its Laison Officer R.Madan Mohan Rao ……Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of AP Limited Rep. by its chief Managing Director, Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13350 OF 2002 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner is a private limited Company having its registered office at C-A, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad and the corporate office at Door No. 40-304, Bhagyanagar, Kurnool. The petitioner Company constructed a shopping complex and hotel in Sy.No.91/2 situate at Bhagyanagar, Kurnool. In respect of its hotel, the petitioner- Company obtained 11 KV HT Electricity Power Supply Connection with contracted maximum demand or 120 KVA under an agreement dated 24.3.1995 with the erstwhile AP State Electricity Board. The petitioner-Company also obtained 38 LT Commercial Service Connection in respect of its shopping complex. The petitioner Company also constructed three theatres in the premises where the hotel and commercial complex are situated. The petitioner Company is a sister concern of M/s. Sri Rayalaseema Alkalis and Allied Chemicals Limited, which is a share holder Company in the fifth respondent. The petitioner was getting power equivalent to 0.15 Mega Watts as its share from the fifth respondent and has been utilizing the same for its hotel, commercial complex and three theaters. The petitioner-Company was receiving two bills from the first respondent, one on account of the petitioner’s power consumption from the first respondent and the other for the consumption of power from the fifth respondent. While so, the petitioner Company was surprised to receive the bill for the month of January 2002 dated 1.2.2002 issued by the third respondent for a sum of Rs.4,27,500/-. In the said bill, the total power utilized by the petitioner Company for the billing month of January 2002 was shown in the account of the first respondent by excluding the allocation of power by the fifth respondent in favour of the petitioner Company for the month of January, 2002. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2486 of 2002 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.02.2002 with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner-Company, if not already disposed of, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner vide his letter dated 15.4.2002 without assigning any reasons. Assailing the same, the petitioner Company filed Writ Petition No. 736 of 2002, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.4.2002 at the admission stage. The petitioner-company carried the matter in appeal being Writ Appeal No. 890 of 2002 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7.5.2002 by setting aside the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.4.2002, but gave liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner-Company dated 15.1.2002. Thereafter, the second respondent passed orders on the said representation of the petitioner-Company on 26.6.2002 stating that as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the fifth respondent and first respondent, only H.T. category-I (Industrial Consumers) alone can use the power wheeled from fifth respondent, but not H.T. Category-II (Commercial Consumers). Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed. Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the APSEB/AP TRANSCO and sister concerns of the fifth respondents, reads as under: “ 4 The participating Industries may transfer their share of energy and power from APGPCL to their sister concern subject to the said sister concern being located within the State of Andhra Pradesh and is a HT Consumer of electricity of APSEB provided also such transfer shall be on month to month basis viz., from the beginning of the month to the end of the month and not a part of the month. For such transfer, application shall be made to APGPCL and prior approval of APGPCL shall be obtained before actual availment. Such transfer shall also be informed to APSEB in advance. EXPLANATION: A sister concern means a concern under the same group. EXPLANATION: For the purposes of this clause month means billing month in accordance with the practices followed for APSEB supply.” Through letter dated 15.01.2002 addressed to the Director (Comml. & Finance), AP Central Power Distribution Company Limited, the fifth respondent stated that power is transferred to the sister concerns when the share holders made a request to transfer the power from their quota to the HT consumer, otherwise, share holders will initiate action against it (fifth respondent) for non allocating the power to their sister concerns as desired by them. The said letter also shows that no decision was taken as to whether power should be transferred to HT consumer of Category-I or II. But as per MOU, the allocation should be given to HT consumer of Andhra Pradesh to the sister concerns of participating industries. In view of the above clear position as indicated in the Memorandum of Understanding and as clarified by the fifth respondent, the impugned letter issued by the second respondent on 26.6.2002 is not correct and is accordingly set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue revised bill as per the old practice by duly giving credit to Rs.2,00,000/- which was deposited pursuant to the order of this Court in WP.No.2486 of 2002. Further it is made clear that if any excess amount is found, the same may be adjusted in the future bills payable by the petitioner. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. Msnro