IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19594 of 2008 Between: RPP Ltd., H.No. 1-B, ( New No. 618 ), Arora Colony, Road No:3, Najaraja Hills, Hyderabad 500034, rep. by its Managing Director, Sri. Y.V.Subba Rao, S/o.Y.Ramachandra Rao Aged: 40 yrs, R/o. H.No. 1-B, ( New No.618), Arora Colony, Road No.:3, Banjara hills, Hyderabad 500034. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of Andra Pradesh Ltd., Renigunta Road, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 Transmission Corporation of Andra Pradesh Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus- (a) declaring that the Respondents are not entitled to keep the energy generated by the petitioner in December 2006 and / or thereafter in abeyance or treat the same as lapsed; and (b) declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission ( Interim Balancing & Settlement Code) Regulation 2006 ( 2 of 2006) is not applicable to the petitioner; and (c) directing the Respondents to implement and continue to allow the facility of banking of electricity and the wheeling of electricity generated and banked electricity in accordance with the Power Wheeling & Purchase Agreement dated 4-9-1998 as amended on 18-1-2000; and (d) directing the Respondents to wheel in subsequent months and not withstanding the limitation in the agreement of the period for wheeling of banked energy, and to thereby enable the petitioner to sell so much of the banked energy which was kept in abeyance and / or treated as lapsed as remains in balance and unsold in the meanwhile by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KATRAGADDA GOPAL CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19594 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to keep the energy generated by the petitioner in December 2006 and thereafter in abeyance or treat the same as lapsed. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Interim Balancing & Settlement Code) Regulation 2006 is not applicable to the petitioner and consequently to direct the respondents to implement and continue to allow the facility of banking of electricity and the wheeling of electricity generated and banked electricity in accordance with the power wheeling and purchase agreement dated 04-09-1998 as amended on 18-01-2000. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 14-05- 2008 in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 and batch. The learned counsel also submitted that though the writ appeal preferred by the respondents against the said order was admitted, the Division Bench declined to grant interim orders. After considering all the contentions raised by the parties, this Court allowed the said writ petitions with directions as under: “For all the above mentioned reasons, all the writ petitions are allowed. A Mandamus shall issue to the respondents to permit the petitioners to use the banked energy in terms of the respective clauses contained in their agreements ignoring clause 12.1 read with Appendix-3 of Regulation 2 of 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to the extent of the energy which was banked prior to 31-12-2006 and not allowed to be utilized after rendering true and proper accounts to the petitioners and, consequently, revise the bills already issued after 31st December, 2006.” The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed the fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated. In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.No.15313 of 2007 and batch, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner herein to use the banked energy in terms of the agreement dated 04-09-1998 as amended on 18-01- 2000 ignoring clause 2.23.5 read with Appendix-3 of Regulation 2 of 2006 to the extent of energy which was banked prior to 31-12-2006 and not allowed to be utilized in December, 2007. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 13-10-2008 KLP