WP/25317/2011 of M/s.LANCO KONDAPALLI POWER LIMITED, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee, on 31 December 2024

1. M/s.LancoKondapalliPowerLimited,PlotNo.4,SoftsolBuilding,Software Units Layout, HITECH City, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500 081,rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, Rakesh Kumar GuptaSoftware Units Layout, HITECH City, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500 081,rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, Rakesh Kumar Gupta

2. Lagadapati Sridhar, S/o. L.V. Ramanaidu, aged 43 years,R/o.PlotNo.1155, Road No.54, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.No.1155, Road No.54, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee, Vidyut Soudha,Hyderabad rep. by its Chief Engineer, (Commercial)Hyderabad rep. by its Chief Engineer, (Commercial)

2. M/s. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, VidyutSoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500082, rep. by its Chairperson &Managing Director,Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500082, rep. by its Chairperson &Managing Director,

3. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep.by itsManaging Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, Singareni[Collieries]Bhavan, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad 506 001Managing Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, Singareni[Collieries]Bhavan, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad 506 001

4. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep.by itsManaging Director, Upstairs, Hero Honda Showroom, Renigunta Road,Tirupati 517 501Managing Director, Upstairs, Hero Honda Showroom, Renigunta Road,Tirupati 517 501

5. Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,rep.by itsManaging Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, 1-7-668, Postal Colony,Hanamkonda, Warangal 506 001Managing Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, 1-7-668, Postal Colony,Hanamkonda, Warangal 506 001

' ^

6. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep.by its Managing Director, Sai Shakti, 0pp. Saraswati Park,[Daba][ Gardens]Visakhapatnam 530 020Visakhapatnam 530 020

■1. The Deputy Chief Controller of Accounts (PP & S),[Andhra][ Pradesh]Power Coordination Committee, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.Power Coordination Committee, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a direction or writ more particularly[in][ the][ nature][ of][ writ]of mandamus declaring the actionof the respondentsin considering theinstalled capacity of the 1st petitioner company's project as 361.92 MW asagainst 368.144 MW pending adjudication of the issue by competent forumand making the monthly payment basing on the reduced installed capacityasarbitrary,illegal,inviolationofprinciplesof naturaljusticebesidesviolating the petitioners' rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) ofConstitutionofIndiaandconsequentlytosetasidetheletterNo.Dy.CCA(PP&S)/SAO(PP&S)/D.No.678/2011,dated30.08.2011issuedbythe 7th respondent.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWVMP. NO: 3544 OF 2011)

Between:

1. Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee, Vidyut Soudha,Hyderabad rep. by its Chief Engineer, (Commercial)Hyderabad rep. by its Chief Engineer, (Commercial)

2. M/s. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, VidyutSoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500082, rep. by its Chairperson &Managing Director,Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500082, rep. by its Chairperson &Managing Director, \

3. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep.by itsManaging Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, Singareni[Collieries]Bhavan, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad 506 001Managing Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, Singareni[Collieries]Bhavan, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad 506 001

4. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep.by itsManaging Director, Upstairs, Hero Honda Showroom, Renigunta Road,Tirupati 517 501Managing Director, Upstairs, Hero Honda Showroom, Renigunta Road,Tirupati 517 501

5. Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,rep.by itsManaging Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, 1-7-668, Postal Colony,Hanamkonda, Warangal 506 001Managing Director, 11-5-423/1/A, First Floor, 1-7-668, Postal Colony,Hanamkonda, Warangal 506 001

6. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep.by itsManaging Director, Sai Shakti, 0pp. Saraswati Park,[Daba][ Gardens,]Visakhapatnam 530 020Managing Director, Sai Shakti, 0pp. Saraswati Park,[Daba][ Gardens,]Visakhapatnam 530 020

7. The Deputy Chief Controller of Accounts (PP & S),[Andhra][ Pradesh]Power Coordination Committee, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.Petitloners/ResponentsPower Coordination Committee, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.Petitloners/Responents

AND

1. M/s.LancoKondapalliPowerLimited,PlotNo.4,SoftsolBuilding,Software Units Layout, HITECH City, Madhapur, Hyderabad[500][ 081,]rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, Rakesh Kumar GuptaSoftware Units Layout, HITECH City, Madhapur, Hyderabad[500][ 081,]rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, Rakesh Kumar Gupta

2. Lagadapati Sridhar,S/o.L.V. Ramanaidu, aged 43[years,]R/o.PlotNo.1155, Road No.54, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.No.1155, Road No.54, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

Respondents/Writ Petitioners

Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court maybe pleased vacate the interim order granted in WPMP[No.][ 31152][ of][ 2011]inWP No. 25317 of 2011 dated 09-09-2011.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 31152 OF 2011)

Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents1 to 7 from making any deductionsfrom the 1st petitioner company's monthly tariff bills basing on the disputedreport of Central Electricity Authority dated 12.01.2010, pending disposal ofthe above writ petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court maybe pleased to permit the petitioner no.1 to file the additional affidavit alongwith the relevant facts/documents and various orders passed by Hon’bleSupreme Court and other Hon’ble Courts/Tribunals.

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI D S SIVADARSHANCounsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V R REDDY KOWURI (SC FOR

APCPDCL)

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI ANUP KOWSHIK KARAVADI (SCFOR AP TRANSCO)

Counsel for the Respondents No.3,5 to 7: SRI THE ADVOCATE

GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR

APEPDCL)

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDAWRIT PETITION No.25317 OF 2011

ORDER:-

Conclusion

1. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondentsin limiting the installed capacity of the 1®* petitioner company’s project to361.92 MW as against 368.144 MW pending adjudication of the issue bycompetent forumandmakingthemonthly payment basingonthereduced installed capacity as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Principles ofNatual Justice besides violating the rights guaranteed[under][ Articles][ 14]and 19(1 )(g) of Constitution of India.in limiting the installed capacity of the 1®* petitioner company’s project to361.92 MW as against 368.144 MW pending adjudication of the issue bycompetent forumandmakingthemonthly payment basingonthereduced installed capacity as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Principles ofNatual Justice besides violating the rights guaranteed[under][ Articles][ 14]and 19(1 )(g) of Constitution of India.

2. The 1®* Petitioner is a company, initially incorporated[as][ M/s.][ Lanco]Power Limited and later renamed multiple times, engaged in electricitygeneration.It entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with theA.P. State Electricity Board for a power project at Kondapalli VillageKrishna District. The PPA was later reentered and later constituted withvariousgovernmentutilitiesundertheAndhraPradeshElectricityReforms Act, 1998.Power Limited and later renamed multiple times, engaged in electricitygeneration.It entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with theA.P. State Electricity Board for a power project at Kondapalli VillageKrishna District. The PPA was later reentered and later constituted withvariousgovernmentutilitiesundertheAndhraPradeshElectricityReforms Act, 1998.

3. The Petitioner owns and operates a 368.144 MW power project atKondapalli, which commencedoperationsinOctober 2000.Despiteinitialdelays,therespondentsbeganpurchasingpowerfromthePetitionerinJanuary 2001.Theinstalledcapacitywastestedandconfirmedtobe368.144MW,whichwasacceptedbythe2ndRespondent. However,in 2003, the 2"^^ Respondent sought[to][ reduce]the installed capacity, proposing adjustments based[on][ ISO][ standards]and tolerance limits. The Petitioner objected, arguing[that][ the]installedcapacity had been agreed upon in 2001 and could not[be][ re-examined.]Kondapalli, which commencedoperationsinOctober 2000.Despiteinitialdelays,therespondentsbeganpurchasingpowerfromthePetitionerinJanuary 2001.Theinstalledcapacitywastestedandconfirmedtobe368.144MW,whichwasacceptedbythe2ndRespondent. However,in 2003, the 2"^^ Respondent sought[to][ reduce]the installed capacity, proposing adjustments based[on][ ISO][ standards]and tolerance limits. The Petitioner objected, arguing[that][ the]installedcapacity had been agreed upon in 2001 and could not[be][ re-examined.]

4. The dispute escalated when the2"^^ Respondent threatenedtorevise the capacity and related payments. The Petitioner[filed]aCivilCourt casein 2003 under the Arbitration andConciliation Act, whichresulted in an order in its favor in 2O08. The respondents appealed, andthe case remains pending.revise the capacity and related payments. The Petitioner[filed]aCivilCourt casein 2003 under the Arbitration andConciliation Act, whichresulted in an order in its favor in 2O08. The respondents appealed, andthe case remains pending.

5. Meanwhile, the2"^^ Respondent approached the A.P.ElectricityRegulatoryCommission(APERC)in2004toresolvethedispute.bypassing the dispute resolution mechanism outlinedin the PPA. TheRegulatoryCommission(APERC)in2004toresolvethedispute.bypassing the dispute resolution mechanism outlinedin the PPA. The

Petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition in 2004 challenging APERC’sjurisdiction, and the case is ongoing.

6. The Andhra Pradesh Government constituted a committee in 2008to resolve the issue, which referred the matter to the Central ElectricityAuthority (CEA). The CEA’s report in 2010 said that an installed capacityof 361.92 MW, for which the Respondents issued subsequent billings.ThePetitioner contestedthis,arguingthat the CEAreportignoredcertain technical aspects, and requested the Government[to][ reconsider]the issue of its production capacityto resolve the issue, which referred the matter to the Central ElectricityAuthority (CEA). The CEA’s report in 2010 said that an installed capacityof 361.92 MW, for which the Respondents issued subsequent billings.ThePetitioner contestedthis,arguingthat the CEAreportignoredcertain technical aspects, and requested the Government[to][ reconsider]the issue of its production capacity

7. Despitethependingdisputes,theRespondentsunilaterallyreduced the installed capacity in 2011, which the Petitioner challengedasillegal andin violation of court orders. The reductionledtoshortpayments,andthePetitioner faced severefinancialdifficulties.ThePetitioner seeks interimrelief, including the restoration of the originalinstalled capacity and the payment of the full amounts owed, pendingthe final resolution of the dispute.reduced the installed capacity in 2011, which the Petitioner challengedasillegal andin violation of court orders. The reductionledtoshortpayments,andthePetitioner faced severefinancialdifficulties.ThePetitioner seeks interimrelief, including the restoration of the originalinstalled capacity and the payment of the full amounts owed, pendingthe final resolution of the dispute.

8. The Petitioner requests a writ to declare the Respondents'[actions]as unlawful and to restrain them from making deductions[based][ on][ the]as unlawful and to restrain them from making deductions[based][ on][ the]

disputed CEA report, pending the outcome of the proceedings before[ the]competent authorities.

9. The Respondents deny the Petitioner's claims, asserting[that][ the]installed capacity of thePetitioner’s projectis 351.49 MW,not theclaimed 368.144 MW. They explain that in 2001, due to an error, thecapacity was mistakenly considered as 368.144 MW, which waslatercorrected in 2003, and the Petitioner was notified of this mistake. Theycontend that their actions were neither arbitrary nor illegal and that thePetitioner is estopped from disputing the CEA report dated 12-01-2010.Regarding the Commercial Operation Date (COD), the Respondentsargue that the date and capacity determination are disputed, with thecapacity initially overstated due to an incorrect calculation in 2001, andthe correct capacity should be 351.49 MW.

10. The Respondentsfurtherassertthatthedisputeshouldbeadjudicatedby APERC,followingthedismissalof thePetitioner’sarbitration application, and that the dispute resolution mechanism in thePPA does not apply. Concerning the CEA report, the Respondentsclarify that the report dated 12-01-2010, which sets the installed capacity at 361.92 MW, was issuedat thePetitioner’s request, and they arewilling to adopt this figure temporarily until APERC’s[final][ decision.][ The]Respondents argue that the Petitioner cannot contest the CEA reportsince it was initiated by the Petitioner.

11. The Respondents also defend their action of revising the capacityto 361.92 MW, stating thatit was not unilateral or[in][ violation][ of][ natural]justice. The revision was made after consulting the[Petitioner][ and][ was]necessarytocorrecttheearliererror,whichledtothePetitionerreceiving excess payments. They emphasize that the[revision][ was][ in][ the]public interest, as the Petitioner had been overpaid by over Rs.1 croreper month, and continuing with these payments would cause significantfinancial burden to public exchequer.

12. Finally,theRespondentsrequestthat thePetitionshouldbedismissed, arguing that any interim relief in favor[of][ the][ Petitioner][ would]burden the consumers, and that the balance of convenience[is][ in][ favour]of the Respondents.dismissed, arguing that any interim relief in favor[of][ the][ Petitioner][ would]burden the consumers, and that the balance of convenience[is][ in][ favour]of the Respondents.

13. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner[submits][ that][ the]writ petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous,[in][ view][ of][ the][ orders]passed in C.M.A.No.1284 of 2008 by the Division Bench[of][ Hon’ble][ High]Court of Telangana.writ petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous,[in][ view][ of][ the][ orders]passed in C.M.A.No.1284 of 2008 by the Division Bench[of][ Hon’ble][ High]Court of Telangana.

14. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing[for][ the]respondents opposed the contention of the learned counselforthepetitioner and submits that, the claim of the respondents[did][ not][ become]infructuous, for the reason that,in view of the ratio[laid][ down][ by][ the]Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikash NigamLimitedvs.Essar Power Limited\ conferring the jurisdiction of[Andhra][ Pradesh]Electricity Regulatory Commission(for short hereinafterreferredasAPERC’)in respect of disputes between the state powerutilities andlicensees/power generating companies, as per the provisionsof theElectricity Act, 2003.respondents opposed the contention of the learned counselforthepetitioner and submits that, the claim of the respondents[did][ not][ become]infructuous, for the reason that,in view of the ratio[laid][ down][ by][ the]Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikash NigamLimitedvs.Essar Power Limited\ conferring the jurisdiction of[Andhra][ Pradesh]Electricity Regulatory Commission(for short hereinafterreferredasAPERC’)in respect of disputes between the state powerutilities andlicensees/power generating companies, as per the provisionsof theElectricity Act, 2003.

15. He submits that,in consonance with the ratio laid[down][ by][ the]Hon’ble Apex Court in Essar Power Limited case, the[2'"'^][ respondent]invoked the jurisdiction of APERC in respect of the[installed][ capacity][ of]Hon’ble Apex Court in Essar Power Limited case, the[2'"'^][ respondent]invoked the jurisdiction of APERC in respect of the[installed][ capacity][ of]

the project of the petitioners by way of O.P (SR) No.[10][ of][ 2004][ before]the Hon’ble APERC. He further submits that, the orderin O.P.(SR)No. 10 of 2004 have attained finality and the said[order][ was][ assailed][ in]W.P.No.738 of 2004, challenging the vires of the Electricity[Act,][ 2003,][ as]unconstitutionalandsoughtrelieftodeclarethatAPERChasnojurisdiction.16.He submits that, initially, Hon’ble High Court of Telangana[granted]interim order directing APERC not to proceed with O.P.(SR)[No.][ 10][ of]2004, as such the sameisstill pending for further[consideration.][ He]further submits that, considering the project installed[capacity][ as][ 351.49]MW, the excess payment made to the petitioner comes[to][ Rs.145][ crores]from the year 2001 and by considering 361.92 MW as[capacity]ofproject, as per the second report of Central Electricity[Authority,][ the]excess payment madeis Rs.53.00 crores, thereby thesaidexcessamount needs to be recovered. Therefore, the impugned[proceedings][ in]the writ petition did not become infructuous, as contended[by][ the][ learned]counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that[the][ petitioner][ underwent]IBC and in view of the orders passed by NCLT, as mentioned[above.]

17. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned[Advocate]Generalfor the respondents and perused the materialavailableonrecord.

18. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for[the][ petitioner][ that]once the petitioner company underwent the process of[Insolvency][ and]Bankruptcy Code, at any stage of pending proceedings[against][ the]Corporate Debtor Company, as an outgoing concern,it[cannot][ enforce]against the Corporate Debtor Company is valid and sustainable,in viewof the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Company[Law][ Appellate]Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in M/s. Shiv Shakti[Inter][ Globe]Exports Pvt. Ltd vs. M/s. KTC Foods Private Limited[&][ another^]wherein it is held as follows;

21. Adverting to the contention of the Learned Counsel[for]the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has erredindenying the sale of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as a ‘goingconcernto the Appellant without including any contingentliabilities, we hold thatit is a settled law that[when][ the sale]proceeds of a” ‘Corporate Debtor’ are duly distributedin theOrder of priority and in the manner prescribed under

53 of the Code,claimsof any other Creditor cannotbeentertained contrary to the provisions entailed under53; subsequent to the distribution of sale proceeds[under]Section 53 no other entity including any Government[entity]canclaim any past unpaid or outstanding dues against theAppellantwhohaspurchasedthe‘CorporateDebtorCompany’ as a ‘going concern’.It is significant to[mention]thatthesecondRespondent/Liquidatorhasspecificallysubmitted that even these claims by the Uttar HaryanaBijiliVitran Nigam were not submitted in the prescribed form[either]during the CIRP Process or at the Liquidation stage.[We][ are]of the considered view that at this stage subsequent[to][ the]sale of the ‘Corporate Debtor Company’ as a ‘going[concern’,]these claims cannot befoistedupon the Appellant.Thescope and objective of the Code is to extinguish all[claims]specifically the ones which were not even made during[the]CIRP or in the Liquidation stage, to aid the purchaser[of][ the]Company as a ‘going concern’ to start on a ‘clean slate’.[The]Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt.Ltd.’ Vs. ‘Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.[&]Ors.’, Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019 and in ‘CoC of[Essar]Steel India Ltd.’ Vs. ‘Satish Gupta & Ors.’ (2020)[8][ SCC][ 531]haslaid downthe proposition that the purchaser of[the]Company even in the Liquidation stage cannot be burdened withpastliabilities whenitisnot mentionedin the‘SaleNotice’.”

19. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the claim of the respondents regarding recovery of money which isnot finally determined so far and after finalization of proceedings underIBCCode,therespondentsarenotentitledfor anyclaimmoreparticularly,theclaimundertheimpugnedproceedingsbecameinfructuous, as held by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court ofTelangana in C.M.A.No.1284 of 2008 is incorrect.The[contention][ of][ the]petitioner that the impugned proceedings have become[infructuous]isnot a merit submission, since the proceedings for determination[between]the parties is pending by way of O.P on the file of APERC, much beforeto the proceedings invoked under IBC. Moreso, the said proceedingswere allowed at the instance of the petitioner by filing[W.P.No.7838][ of]2004 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana.that the claim of the respondents regarding recovery of money which isnot finally determined so far and after finalization of proceedings underIBCCode,therespondentsarenotentitledfor anyclaimmoreparticularly,theclaimundertheimpugnedproceedingsbecameinfructuous, as held by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court ofTelangana in C.M.A.No.1284 of 2008 is incorrect.The[contention][ of][ the]petitioner that the impugned proceedings have become[infructuous]isnot a merit submission, since the proceedings for determination[between]the parties is pending by way of O.P on the file of APERC, much beforeto the proceedings invoked under IBC. Moreso, the said proceedingswere allowed at the instance of the petitioner by filing[W.P.No.7838][ of]2004 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana.

20. ThecontentionofthelearnedAdvocateGeneralfortherespondents that, the Central Electricity Authority submitted a report, onein the year 2005 at the instance of the respondents holding that theinstalled capacity of the petitioneris 351.49 MW only[and]receivedrespondents that, the Central Electricity Authority submitted a report, onein the year 2005 at the instance of the respondents holding that theinstalled capacity of the petitioneris 351.49 MW only[and]received

money at the rate of the installed capacity of the petitioner 368.144 MW.But,later,attheinstanceof thepetitioner,theCentralElectricityAuthority finally submitted its another report, whereinit is held that, in theyear 2010, the installed capacity of the petitioner is only 361.92 MW.

21. From the above,itis clear and categorical that the petitioner isunder liability to the respondents for extra claim amount already receivedby the petitioner, for which, the respondents invoked the jurisdiction ofAPERC, whichis the competent adjudicating authority[for][ redressal][ of]the disputes between the respondents and the petitioners,asheldinGujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Limited vs. Essar Power Limited,is avalid submission and liable to be accepted.under liability to the respondents for extra claim amount already receivedby the petitioner, for which, the respondents invoked the jurisdiction ofAPERC, whichis the competent adjudicating authority[for][ redressal][ of]the disputes between the respondents and the petitioners,asheldinGujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Limited vs. Essar Power Limited,is avalid submission and liable to be accepted.

22. Further, the adjudicatory proceedings filed for redressalof thedisputes regarding the installed capacity of the project[of][ the][ petitioner]are pending on the file of the APERC did not become[infructuous.][ Since]theclaimantbeforethe Commissionisapublicauthorityandthepetitioner received excess amount from the public exchequer.[Therefore,]the question whether the respondents can recover the[amount][ or][ not]disputes regarding the installed capacity of the project[of][ the][ petitioner]are pending on the file of the APERC did not become[infructuous.][ Since]theclaimantbeforethe Commissionisapublicauthorityandthepetitioner received excess amount from the public exchequer.[Therefore,]the question whether the respondents can recover the[amount][ or][ not]

/

^/^

even after completion of adjudication before the APERC[can][ be][ decided]by invoking appropriate proceedings before the competent[authority.]

23. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the[case and]the legal proposition relied upon by both the counsel,[liberty][ is][ granted][ to]the petitioner and respondents to sort out their claims[by][ themselves,]proposing out of these legal principles pending before[APERC.]the legal proposition relied upon by both the counsel,[liberty][ is][ granted][ to]the petitioner and respondents to sort out their claims[by][ themselves,]proposing out of these legal principles pending before[APERC.]

24. With the above, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

25. Consequently,miscellaneousapplications pendingif[any,]shallstand closed.stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRARSECT ON OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU[NIMMAGADDA](For His Lordship’s kind Perusal)(For His Lordship’s kind Perusal)

To,

1. The Chief Engineer(Commercial), Andhra Pradesh Power CoordinationCommittee, Vidyut Soudha, Vijayawada.Committee, Vidyut Soudha, Vijayawada.

2. The Chairperson & Managing Director, M/s. Transmission Corporationof Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Vijayawada.of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Vijayawada.

3. The Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company[of][ A.P.]Limited, Vijayawada.Limited, Vijayawada.

4. The Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Upstairs, Hero Honda Showroom, Renigunta Road, Tirupati517 501Limited, Upstairs, Hero Honda Showroom, Renigunta Road, Tirupati517 501

n'

5. The Managing Director, Northern Power Distribution[Company][ of][ A.P.]Limited, Vijayawada.Limited, Vijayawada.

6. The Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution[Company][ of][ A.P.]Limited, Sai Shakti, 0pp. Saraswati Park, Daba Gardens,Visakhapatnam 530 020Limited, Sai Shakti, 0pp. Saraswati Park, Daba Gardens,Visakhapatnam 530 020

7. The Deputy Chief Controller of Accounts (PP & S),[Andhra][ Pradesh]Power Coordination Committee, Vijayawada.Power Coordination Committee, Vijayawada.

8. One CC to SRI. D. S. SIVADARSHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

9. One CC to SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI, (SC FOR

APCPDCL) Advocate [OPUC]

10. Two CCS to SRI. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,High Court[of][ Andhra]Pradesh at Amaravati[OUT]Pradesh at Amaravati[OUT]

11. One CC to SRI. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL) Advocate[OPUC][OPUC]

12. 9 L.R. Copies

13. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of[Law,][ Justice][ &]Company Affairs, New Delhi.Company Affairs, New Delhi.

14. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court[ of]A.P At Amaravati, Guntur District.A.P At Amaravati, Guntur District.

15. Three C.D.Copies

nm

HIGH COURTDATED;31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.25317 of 2011

X31 JAN 2025Oi^Current Section

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

I