IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14182 of 2001 Between: M/s.Priyadarshini Cement Ltd., Rep.by its Legal Officer, Mr.Ch.Krishna Prasad 34, Green Tower, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-73. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., Rep.by its Financial Adviser & Chief Controller of Accounts Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer. Operation Circle, Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., Kurnool. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, or Order or direction declaring that the Respondent cannot charge the differential voltage tariff between the regular rate and special rate for supply of demand and energy by APTRANSCO as voltage surcharge in respect of power generated and supplied by AP Gas Power Corporation Ltd. and wheeled by APTRANSCO and interdict the Respondents from charging or collecting such differential voltage surcharge on the wheeled energy supplied by AP Gas Power Corporation Ltd. for the consumption month June,2001 and also for future months. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents : O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14182 OF 2001 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the AP TRANSO cannot charge differential voltage between tariff between the regular rate and special rate for supply of demand and energy as voltage surcharge in respect of power generated and supplied by AP Gas Power Corporation Limited and wheeled by AP TRANSCO. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by both the parties that W.P.No.4304 of 2000 and batch in which an identical question was involved was dismissed by this Court after hearing both the parties by order dated 22.09.2008. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated following the above said order, this writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.01.2009 gbs