Southern Power Distribution ... vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4971 AP

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

              WRIT PETITION No.25990 OF 2021

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, calls in question the order dated 02.08.2021

passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission -

respondent No.1 herein. Petitioner No.1 is a Distribution

Company, completely owned and operated by the State of Andhra

Pradesh and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies

Act, 1956, and petitioner No.2 herein is a Transmission Company,

which is also a Company incorporated under the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956 and is also fully owned by the State of

Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No.2 herein is also a company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, under the control of the

Union of India and is a Maharatna Company, responsible for the

supply of fuel for various purposes. Respondent No.2-Company is

also in the business of generating wind energy and supplying the

same to the distribution companies and in furtherance of the same,

respondent No.2 herein entered into various power purchase

agreements with the petitioners. Respondent No.2 entered into

power purchase agreements dated 31.01.2012, 08.05.2012,

21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014. The present dispute is only with

regard to the payment of tariff with regard to the power purchase

agreements entered into on 21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014, wherein

the tariff was fixed @Rs.4.70 per unit. Respondent No.2 herein

approached the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory

Commission, by way of filing O.P. No.64 of 2019 against the

petitioners herein, complaining non-payment of the tariff under the

power purchase agreements dated 21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014.

The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, by way of

an order dated 02.08.2021, allowed the said O.P. No.64 of 2019 in

part and granted the following reliefs in favour of respondent No.2

herein:

"(a) Respondent No.1 shall pay all the outstanding bills to the petitioner under all the four PPAs as per the invoices raised by the petitioner in two equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.09.2021 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 31.10.2021.

(b) Respondent No.1 shall pay LPS on the arrears at 50% of the ruling Prime Lending Rate along with the arrears as per the schedule fixed under (a) supra."

2. In the above background, assailing the validity and the

legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Andhra Pradesh

Electricity Regulatory Commission, the present Writ Petition has

been filed.

3. Resisting the present Writ Petition, a preliminary

counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 herein.

4. Heard the learned Advocate General for the petitioners

and Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for respondent No.2,

apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. Submissions/contentions of the learned Advocate

General:

(1) The order passed by respondent No.1-Andhra Pradesh

Electricity Regulatory Commission is highly erroneous, contrary to

law and is in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Commission.

(2) The Commission passed the questioned order without

taking into account the submissions made and the contentions

advanced on behalf of the petitioners herein.

(3) The Commission grossly erred in holding that the orders of

this Court in W.P. Nos.9844 of 2019 and Batch confines itself to

the generators which have approached this Court and that the said

finding tantamounts interpretation of the orders passed by this

Court and the same is in excess of the jurisdiction of respondent

No.1-Commission.

(4) The Commission grossly erred in holding that since the

order in W.P. Nos.9844 of 2019 dated 24.09.2019 is not applicable

to respondent No.2, respondent No.2 is entitled to receive payments

@Rs.4.70 as originally agreed vide power purchase agreements

dated 21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014.

(5) The findings recorded by respondent No.1, which are in

excess of the jurisdiction would have large scale impact on all

power generators who have not approached this Court, challenging

G.O.Rt. No.63 Energy (Power II) Department dated 01.07.2019 and

the consequential letter dated 12.07.2019 and would also lead to

disparity between two similarly placed parties who have been

issued the very same letter dated 12.07.2019 and who have been

made parties to the Revision Petition before respondent No.1 and is

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(6) The impugned order passed by respondent No.1-

Commission will have a snow ball effect on the distribution

companies and the distribution companies will be arm-twisted into

paying the amount as originally agreed to all the parties who have

not challenged G.O.Rt. No.63 dated 01.07.2019 and consequential

letter dated 12.07.2019 and if the same is permitted, the spirit of

the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.9844 of 2019 and

Batch would be defeated.

6. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned

Advocate General places reliance on the following judgments:

1. Chimmonlall Rameshwarlall Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta1.

2. India Household and Healthcare Ltd., Vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.2

3. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi.3

7. Submissions/contentions of Sri Challa Gunaranjan,

learned counsel for respondent No.2:

(1) There is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any

procedural infirmities in the impugned order and in the absence of

AIR 1960 SC 280

(2007) 5 SCC 510

(2009) 3 SCC 643

the same, the questioned order is not amenable for any judicial

review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2) The present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is not maintainable in view of availability of

effective and efficacious alternative remedy of appeal to the Central

Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 111 of the

Electricity Act, 2003.

(3) Respondent No.1 - Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Commission, after meticulously and thoroughly considering various

issues raised by all the parties to the Original Petition, passed the

impugned order, as such, the same cannot be faulted and by any

stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that respondent No.1-

Commission exceeded its jurisdiction.

(4) The very entertainability of O.P. No.66 of 2019 is under

challenge before the Appellate Tribunal for electricity in DFR

No.2405 of 2019 and the Appellate Tribunal, vide orders dated

05.12.2019, stayed the proceedings in O.P. No.66 of 2019 on the

file of respondent No.1 herein.

(5) In support of his submissions and contentions, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 places reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of

State Tax and others Vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited 4 dated

03.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021.

Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021 dated 03.09.2021

8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case

on hand, the pleadings available on record and the contentions

advanced by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel

for respondent No.2, the following issues emerge for consideration

and adjudication by this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India:

(1) Whether the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable before this Court against the order impugned?

(2) Whether respondent No.1 - Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order?

(3) Whether the petitioners herein are entitled for any relief in the present Writ Petition?

9. Findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2: There is absolutely no

controversy with regard to the reality that the petitioners and

respondent No.2 entered into power purchase agreements on

21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014, agreeing for the tariff of Rs.4.70 per

unit. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.63

Energy (Power II) Department dated 01.07.2019, constituting a

High Level Negotiation Committee for the purpose of reviewing,

negotiating and to bring down the alleged high wind and solar

energy purchase prices. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager

(IPC), A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Corporate Office, Tirupati, by way of a letter

Lr.No.CGM/IPC/APSPDCL/GM/IPC/D.No.550/19 dated

12.07.2019, made a request to the Generating Companies to

submit revised/reduced monthly power supply bills, pending for

payment by duly revising the tariff @Rs.2.43 per unit on the ground

that the distribution companies were suffering huge financial

crises. Questioning the validity of the said G.O.Rt.No.63 dated

01.07.2019 and the letter dated 12.07.2019, certain Generating

Companies preferred W.P.No.9844 of 2019 and Batch before this

Court. By way of a common order dated 24.09.2019, learned single

Judge of this Court, allowed the said Batch of Writ Petitions,

setting aside G.O.Rt.No.63 dated 01.07.2019 and the letter dated

12.07.2019 and also directed the Distribution Companies to clear

the bills of the petitioners therein from June, 2018 onwards

@Rs.2.44 per unit for solar generators and Rs.2.43 on wind

generators and to pay future bills as an interim arrangement till

the resolution of the dispute by respondent No.1-Commission

constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003, and also fixed six

months' time to respondent No.1 to adjudicate and also requested

respondent No.1 to complete the adjudication within six months.

Thereafter, petitioner No.1 herein approached the APERC by filing

O.P. No.66 of 2019 on 09.10.2019, seeking to amend the tariff from

Rs.4.70 per unit to Rs.2.43 per unit from the financial year 2019-

20 and to restrict the tariff duration of power purchase agreements

for a period between 5 to 10 years as against the existing period of

25 years. In the said O.P. No.66 of 2019, respondent No.2 has also

been arrayed as respondent No.4. Questioning the very

entertainability of the said O.P. No.66 of 2019, one M/s. Rayala

Wind Power Company Private Limited carried the matter to the

Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and by way of an order dated

05.12.2019, the Appellate Tribunal stayed further proceedings

before the State Commission in O.P. No.64 of 2019 and the said

order is still subsisting. It is also pertinent to note that as against

the common order dated 24.09.2019 in W.P. No.9844 of 2019 and

Batch, Writ Appeal No.393 2019 is preferred, challenging the order

of the learned single Judge to the extent of granting reduced tariff

of Rs.2.43 as an interim arrangement pending resolution of the

revision of the tariff before the APERC and the said Writ Appeal is

pending now. While the things being so, respondent No.2 herein by

invoking the provisions of Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act,

2003, read with Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Conduct) Regulations, 1999, approached respondent No.1-Andhra

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, seeking reliefs of the

payments in lieu of the invoices @Rs.4.70 per unit for the power

purchase agreements dated 21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014 and late

payment surcharge in lieu of non-payment of amounts due and

wrongful deduction of the rebate by petitioner No.1 herein.

10. The essence of the case of the petitioners in the present

Writ Petition is that respondent No.1-APERC exceeded its

jurisdiction by entertaining O.P. No.64 of 2019 and rendering

adjudication in the said O.P. and the same is contrary to the orders

passed by this Court in W.P. No.9844 of 2019 and Batch dated

24.09.2019. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the

learned counsel for respondent No.2 that in the said Batch of Writ

Petitions, one M/s. Vayu Urga Bharat Private Limited filed I.A. No.9

of 2019 in W.P.No.9876 of 2019, under Order 47 Rule 1 read with

Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of

the order dated 24.09.2019 and for the following consequential

reliefs:

"i) Declare and hold that the interim arrangement in the impugned judgment will not affect/modify/vary the directions contained in the Final Order dated 31.08.2019 in O.P. No.35 of 2019 with respect to the payment towards the past outstanding dues by the Respondent No.4 at the PPA tariff, insofar as relating to the Review Petitioner.

ii) Allow deletion of the direction that "the Respondent No.4 to pay all pending and future bills of the Petitioner at the "interim" rate of Rs.2.43/- per unit, till the dispute is resolved by the APERC" insofar as the Review Petitioner is concerned, and

iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

11. It is also significant to note that vide order dated

19.12.2019, learned single Judge, while observing that there was a

mistake apparent on the face of the record, allowed the said review

application in the following manner:

"(iv) the interim arrangement in the impugned Judgment dated 24.09.2019 in WP.No.9844 of 2019 will not affect/modify/vary the directions contained in the Final Order dated 31.08.2019 in O.P.No.35 of 2019 with

respect to the payment towards the past outstanding dues by the Respondent No.4 at the PPA tariff, relating to the Review Petitioner;

(v) Allow deletion of the direction "that the Respondent No.4 to pay all pending and future bills of the Petitioner at the interim rate of Rs.2.43/- per unit, till the dispute is resolved by the APERC insofar as the Review Petitioner is concerned."

12. In fact, the petitioners herein advanced all these

arguments before respondent No.1-Andhra Pradesh Electricity

Regulatory Commission. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity

Regulatory Commission duly taking into consideration the

respective pleadings of the parties, framed the following points for

consideration and adjudication:

"1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the outstanding amounts under monthly invoices for the power generated and supply by its to respondent No.1?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to Late Payment Surcharge (IPS) and if so for what period and at what rate?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment towards alleged unlawful deduction of rebate from the petitioner's monthly invoices raised from FY 2013-14 to 2015-16?"

13. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

- respondent No.1 herein categorically recorded a finding that the

power purchase agreements dated 21.03.2013 and 18.07.2014 are

not the subject matter of the any dispute either before the

Commission or before the High Court. It is also not the case of the

petitioners herein that respondent No.1 herein suffers from

inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain O.P. No.64 of 2019. The

contention of the learned Advocate General that since the Writ

Appeal is pending before the Division Bench of this Court against

the order passed by the learned single Judge, respondent No.1-

Commission should not have entertained the O.P., cannot stand for

judicial scrutiny, as respondent No.2 herein is not a party for the

above said litigation. It is also significant to note that the said

contention will also fall to the ground in view of the order passed by

the learned single Judge in I.A. No.9 of 2019 in W.P. No.9876 of

2019. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said

that respondent No.1 - Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in

passing the order.

14. It is absolutely not in dispute that any order passed by

respondent No.1 - Commission is appealable before the Central

Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 111 of the

Electricity Act, 2003.

15. In Chimmonlall Rameshwarlall's case (1 supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph No.8, held in the following

manner:

"In the present case the circumstance of very great materiality and significance which stares the appellants in the face is that in regard to this very point there is a considered judgment of the High

Court delivered by it on the applications made by the appellants to it under Section 66(2) of the Act which came to the conclusion that no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal, which judgment stands, not having been appealed against in any manner whatever by the appellants.

The result of our going into these appeals before us on the merits would be either to confirm the judgment which has been pronounced by the High Court or to differ from it. If we did the former the appellants would be out of Court, if, however, perchance we came to the contrary conclusion and accepted the latter view, namely, that the High Court was wrong in not granting the applications of the appellants under Section 66(2) of the Act there would be two contrary decisions, one by the High Court and the other by us and we would be in effect, though not by the proper procedure to be adopted by the appellants in that behalf, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. This is an eventuality which we cannot view with equanimity. It is contrary to all notions of comity of courts and even though we are a Court which could in certain events set aside and overrule the decisions of the High Court concerned, we cannot bypass the normal procedure which is to be adopted for this purpose and achieve the result indirectly in the manner suggested by the appellants. We, therefore, think that in the circumstances here it would be inappropriate on our part to enter upon an adjudication of these appeals on merits. We would, therefore, dismiss these appeals without anything more".

16. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent No.2 herein

has not approached this Court earlier, as such, the above referred

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not render any

assistance to the case of the petitioners herein.

17. In India Household and Healthcare Limited's case (2

supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph Nos.16 and 17, held

thus:

"The said issue is pending consideration before the Madras High Court. Not only the parties to the agreement but also those officers who have negotiated on behalf of the respective companies are also parties therein. LG Corporation which is the owner of the LG logo is also a party therein. Therein, an order of injunction had been passed. In terms of the said order of injunction, the applicant herein was prohibited from taking any action in terms of the said agreement which would include the arbitration clause also. The order dated 21.01.2006 has become final. No appeal has been preferred thereagainst. The applicant could have filed an appropriate application for modification of the order of injunction which it did not choose to do. The doctrine of comity or amity required a court not to pass and order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law. The courts have jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction not only under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure but also under Section 151 thereof.

This aspect of the matter has been considered in 'A Treatise on The Law Governing Injunctions' by Spelling and Lewis' wherein it is stated:

"Sec. 8. Conflict and Loss of Jurisdiction. Where a court having general jurisdiction and having acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter has issued an injunction, a court of concurrent jurisdiction will usually refuse to interfere by issuance of a second injunction. There is no established rule of exclusion which would deprive a court of jurisdiction to issue an injunction because of the issuance of an injunction between the same parties appertaining to the same subject- matter, but there is what may properly be termed a judicial comity on the subject. And even where it is a case of one court having refused to grant an injunction, while such refusal does not exclude another coordinate court or judge from jurisdiction, yet the granting of the injunction by a second judge may lead to complications and retaliatory action "

18. In Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation's case

(3 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph No.32, held thus:

"A decision is an authority, it is trite, for which it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. This wholesome principle is equally applicable in the matter of construction of a judgment. A judgment is not to be construed as a statute. It must be construed upon reading the same as a whole. For the said purpose, the attending circumstances may also be taken into consideration".

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the said judgments also do not render

any assistance to the case of the petitioners herein.

20. Coming to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for

the petitioners in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax's case (4

supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the

maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, when alternative remedy is available,

categorically ruled in the following manner:

11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is:

(i) a breach of fundamental rights;

(ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or

(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the

conveyance. In this backdrop, it was CA 5121/2021 not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent".

21. It is very much evident from a reading of the above

judgment that only in certain exceptional circumstances, such as,

i) breach of Fundamental Rights; (ii) violation of principles of

natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction or; (iv) challenge to the

vires of the statute or delegated legislation, the Writ Petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable

despite the availability of the alternative remedy. In the instant

case, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that there is

breach of Fundamental Rights, violation of the principles of natural

justice or excess of jurisdiction and there is no challenge as to the

vires of statute under delegated legislation.

22. In the instant case, this Court does not find that the

first respondent herein exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the

impugned order.

23. It is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of the

Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed

Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan and others5, wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court, at paragraph No.7, held thus:

"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art.226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of tact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding,

AIR 1964 SC 477

the. Tribunal had. erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was' insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque 1955-1 SCR 1104; AIR 1955 SCC 233; Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240; (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1960 SC 1168".

24. In the instant case also, petitioners herein are seeking a

writ in the nature of writ of certiorari. In the considered opinion of

this Court, none of the contingencies, as mentioned in the above

referred paragraphs, do exist in the present case, as such, a writ, in

the nature of writ of certiorari, cannot be issued by this Court in

exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no

scintilla of hesitation to hold that the present Writ Petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained

before this Court in view of the availability of the efficacious

alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

25. It is absolutely not in dispute that any order passed by

the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission-respondent

No.1 herein is appealable before the Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As

recorded supra, this Court does not find that respondent No.1

herein exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed,

leaving it open for the petitioners to avail the remedy in accordance

with Section 111 of the Electricity Act. The observations made in

the preceding paragraphs shall not be construed as findings on the

other merits of the matter.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this

Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs

of the Writ Petition.

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 06.12.2021

Note: LR copy to be marked B/O siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

WRIT PETITION No.25990 OF 2021

Date: 06.12.2021

siva

*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

+ WRIT PETITION No.25990 OF 2021

% 06.12.2021

# Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Beside Srinivas Kalyana Mandapam, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - 517 501. And another

- - - Petitioners And

1. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, 4th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad - 500 004.

   And others                                      - - - Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioners          : Sri S.Sriram

                                           Advocate General


^ Counsel for Respondents              : Sri Challa Gunaranjan
                                         Respondent No.2
< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.   AIR 1960 SC 280
2.   (2007) 5 SCC 510
3.   (2009) 3 SCC 643

4. Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021 dated 03.09.2021

5. AIR 1964 SC 477

This Court made the following: