THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22821 of 2010 Dated: 17.09.2010 Between: M/s. G.V.K. Industries Limited, Rep. by its Director V.Rama Rao. .. Petitioner. And Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Power, New Delhi, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: Petitioner - M/s. GVK Industries Limited, represented by its Director, filed this writ petition seeking the following substantive relief: “…Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus holding that the respondents are not entitled to unilaterally implement the impugned letter bearing No.CE/Comm/DE-BPP/ADE-2/F.ROC 17.17/D.No.535/03 dated 20.08.2003, as the said letter itself is bad, illegal, arbitrary in nature, unenforceable and not in accordance with the Statutory Notification No. S.O. 251(E) as well as the Power Purchase Agreement, and thereby deduct/adjust any money purportedly towards the alleged excess payment of ROE from future payments due and payable to the petitioner Company, until the disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioner company before the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and pass such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” It appears, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 20.08.2003, alleging that Return of Equity (R.O.E) paid @ 16% on a monthly billing system results in an effective payment of 17.17% as per the perception of the Controller and Auditor General and that the excess amount paid over and above 16% shall be recovered from the petitioner by way of adjustment from future energy bills. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19316 of 2003 and pending disposal of the said writ petition, this Court, on 12.09.2003 in WPMP.No.24220 of 2003, directed the respondents therein not to deduct/adjust the alleged excess R.O.E. in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2003 from the future energy bills. Thereafter, on 26.07.2010, W.P.No.19316 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and also extending the interim order dated 12.09.2003 for a period of six weeks from that day. According to the petitioner, pursuant to orders dated 26.07.2010 passed in W.P.No.19316 of 2003, it filed a petition, under Section 86(1) (f) of Electricity Act, 2003, along with an application, seeking stay of implementation of the notice dated 20.08.2003, before the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission at Hyderabad, on 02.09.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad, has not passed any orders either in the Original Petition filed by it under Section 86(1) (f) of Electricity Act, 2003 or in the stay petition filed therein, and taking advantage of this situation, respondents 2 and 3 are threatening to adjust the alleged excess payment of R.O.E. in the monthly bill payable to it on 16.09.2010. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that this Court passed interim order on 12.09.2003 in W.P.M.P.No. 24220 of 2003 in W.P.No.19316 of 2003, which was in force for nearly seven years and also extended on 26.07.2010 while disposing of W.P.No.19316 of 2003, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents are directed not to deduct/adjust the alleged excess R.O.E. in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2003 from the future energy bills, during pendency of the O.P. filed by the petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad, against the notice dated 20.08.2003 issued by the 3rd respondent. It is further directed that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad, shall dispose of the O.P. filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the notice dated 20.08.2003 issued by the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 17.09.2010 Note: Issue CC tomorrow B/o v v