IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1275 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/06/2005 in Review W.P.M.P.No. : 13921 OF 2005 in W.P.No.4727 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, (A.P. Transco) rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Chairman & Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, (A.P. Transco), Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... APPELLANTS AND M/s Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Registered Office at Gondiporla, Kurnool-518 004, Kurnool District, rep. by its Vice President, R.Madan Mohan Rao. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.1275 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed by the appellants against the order of the learned single Judge passed in Review W.P.M.P.No.13921 of 2005 in W.P.No.4727 of 2004 on 17.06.2005. Appellants herein are the respondents and respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in letter No. CE (Comm) R&C Penalities/D.No.405/03 dated 9-12-2003 and the demand of additional charges in letter No.SE/O/KNL/REV/JAO/HT/D. No.643/02 dated 27-09-2002 and letter No.SE/O/KNL/SAO. JAO/HT/REV/D.No.742/03 dated 30-12-2003 of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void and contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19986 of 2002 dated 1-7-2003 and consequently set aside the same. The learned single Judge having observed that in view of the attitude of the respondents in replicating its orders by not giving due weight to the orders of this Court, it is a fit case to set aside the proceedings impugned therein, allowed the writ petition at the stage of admission setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 9-12-2003, the letter dated 9-12-2003 and 27-9-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed a Review W.P.M.P.No.13921 of 2005 seeking to review the order dated 4-4- 2005 passed in W.P.No.4727 of 2004. The learned single judge having observed that in view of the discrepancy, it is highly expedient for the respondents to examine and take into account this discrepancy and remove the same in the case of the petitioner and accord energy quota proportionately in accordance with the policy by applying accurate telescopic method, ordered the application accordingly. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. It is contended by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents-appellants that the writ petitioner is not an exception to the uniform policy and there were no anomalies existing in the quotas fixed as per BPMS No:417, dated 16.5.1988 in which telescopic method was adopted quota of energy and the quota of units fixed for the writ petitioner is correct as per the said B.P. and that the material available with the writ petition is not correct and in fact, the said material had been placed before the learned single Judge to mislead the Court and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge passed in Rev. W.P.M.P is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner that the order of the learned single is only to extent of examining the discrepancy and according the energy quota proportionately in accordance with the policy and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference by this Court. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the material placed by the writ petitioner is correct or not, it is relevant to go through the order impugned, which reads as under: “In view of the discrepancy, it is highly expedient for the respondents to examine and take into account this discrepancy and remove the same in the case of the petitioner and accord energy quota proportionately in accordance with the policy i.e., by applying accurate telescopic method.” The above order makes it clear that it is not a positive direction to the respondents-appellants. But, at the same time, it is a direction to the respondents-appellants to examine and take into account the discrepancy in question and remove the same in the case of writ petitioner and accord energy quota in accordance with the policy. Therefore, it can be said that it is nothing but an exercise to be done by the respondents-appellants to examine the matter and act in accordance with the policy. Therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, this writ appeal is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI __________________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 1st April, 2009. Dvs/Kh HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.1275 OF 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Dated 1st April, 2009.