Telangana High Court
WP/10690/2011 of Subramanya Cotton Ginning Industries, Rakmapur (V) Vs Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission, on 29 December 2011
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10690 of 2011 Date: 29.12.2011 Between: Subramanya Cotton Ginning Industries, Rukmapur, Karimanagar District, Reptd By its Managing Partner-Vollalla Pavan Kumar And another. ..... Petitioners AND The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad, Reptd
+HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.10690 of 2011
Between:
Date: 29.12.2011
Subramanya Cotton Ginning Industries,Rukmapur, Karimanagar District, ReptdBy its Managing Partner-Vollalla Pavan KumarAnd another.
..... Petitioners
AND
The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission,Hyderabad, Reptd by its Chairman,And four others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Ravinder Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.Manoher Reddy Standing Counsel for APCPDCL
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed assailing order, dated 05-06-2010, of respondent No.1, whereby he hasdetermined Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for thefinancial year 2008-2009.
At the hearing, it has come out that a batch of WritPetitions, filed raising identical issues and questioning theorder of respondent No.1, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, was disposed of by a learned single Judge of thisCourt on 29-07-2011 in India Cements Ltd. and another Vs.
Chairman, APSERC, Hyderabad and others[[1]].
A perusal of the judgment in the aforesaid batch ofcases shows that the learned Judge set aside theimpugned order of respondent No.1 with liberty to theDISCOMs to file applications afresh, claiming FSA, anddirecting respondent No.1 to consider and deicide the samein accordance with law, if and when such applications werefiled.
Having regard to the above judgment, which appliesto the present case, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms ofthe said judgment and to the extent indicated therein.
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J29[th] December 2011DR
[1]2011 (5) ALT 1882011 (5) ALT 188