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

Cites 0, Cited by 0

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

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

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

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead