Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/79/2013 of SRI RAMESH RAW & BOILED RICE MILL & 2 OTHERS Vs SECRETARY,APERC., HYDERABAD & 2 OTHERS on 2 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 79/2013 Between: 1. SRI RAMESH RAW & BOILED RICE MILL & 2 OTHERS, REP.BY ITS
APHC010321562013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 79/2013
Between:
1. SRI RAMESH RAW & BOILED RICE MILL & 2 OTHERS, REP.BY
ITS
MANAGING
PARTNER
KARAMSETTY
RAMESH, S/O.LAKSLUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.PEDDACHERUKURU, NELLORE, S.P.S.R.NELLORE
DISTRICT.
2. M/S. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI RAW & BOILED RICE MILL
REP.BY ITS, MANAGING PARTNER S.SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O.RAJUPALEM VILLAGE, NELLORE RURAL MANDAL, NELLORE, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.
3. SRI SANGAMESWARA RAW & BOILED RICE MILL
REP.BY ITS, MANAGING PARTNER K.PERAPA NAIDU, S/O.SAMBAVA
NAIDU,
AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O.ALLIPURAM
ROAD,
ALLIPURAM,
NELLORE,
S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SECRETARY APERC HYDERABAD 2 OTHERS, AND 5TH
FLOOR, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD.
NJS,J
W.P.NO.79 OF 2013
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
LIMITED,
MINT
COMPOUND,
SECRETARIAT
ROAD,
HYDERABAD
REP.BY
ITS
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OPERATION CIRCLE
SOUTHERN, POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF
ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
NELLORE.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a)
declaring the action of the respondents in determining and approving Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for the Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2011- 12 and for 1st quarter of Financial year 2012-13 pursuant to order of respondent as illegal, contrary to Regulation No.1 of 2003 being arbitrary, without jurisdiction or power, and in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh electricity Reform Act, 1998 and Electricity Act, 2003, besides violating petitioners rights guaranteed under Art.14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution of India (b)
to declare the action of the respondents imposing restrictions and measures on contract power supply and consumption vide proceedings No. APERC/Secy/14/20120-13
dated 14-09-2012 as arbitrary, illegal and public policy (c)
and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 86 OF 2013
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
NJS,J
W.P.NO.79 OF 2013
petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay the collection of FSA charges by the Respondents for all quarters of financial years 2010-11 & 2011-12 including penalties pursuant to the proceedings No APERC/Secy/14/20120-13 dated 14-09-2012 from the petitioners pending disposal of the above writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2.
The Court made the following:
NJS,J
W.P.NO.79 OF 2013
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:
Mr.Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, in view of the subsequent developments in the writ petition, the cause does not survive for adjudication.
2. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 03.03.2026
LSP