Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Southern Power Distribution ... vs M/S Satya Exports on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.122 of 2020
(Taken up through video conferencing)
The Southern Power Distribution Company
of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
M/s. Satya Exports, Gudlapalli Village,
Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, AP.
Rep. by its Managing Partner, N.V. Sudhakar
.. Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : --
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 24.03.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy has drawn our attention to the proof of service filed by
him. Perusal of the document filed in support of proof of service goes to show
that the notice was served on 09.02.2021. Despite service of notice, the
respondent/writ petitioner has not entered appearance. The cause list reflects
the name of the counsel who had appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner at
the stage of writ petition, but he is also not present.
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.122 of 2020
The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.03.2016
passed in W.P.No.8231 of 2016. Relevant portion of the said order reads as
follows:
"2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as
well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents that the
subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a
common order of this Court in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch
dt.26.08.2015. In the said order, it was directed that the
petitioners shall pay half of the additional consumption deposit
amount demanded by the respondents. But, in the instant case,
the amount collected by the respondents towards consumption
security deposit is equivalent to two months present consumption
charges and the said amount has to be adjusted in the future
consumption charges.
3. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of in
accordance with and in terms of the order in W.P.No.37713 of
2014 and batch dt.26.08.2015 with a further direction to the
respondents to adjust the amount in excess of half of consumption
deposit paid by the petitioner, in the future consumption charges
of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs."
Perusal of the above would go to show that the writ petition came to be
disposed of following the order dated 26.08.2015 in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and
batch.
It is submitted by Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy that against the said order dated
26.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch, writ appeals, being
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.122 of 2020
W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch, were preferred and by judgment dated
19.05.2016, the Division Bench allowed those writ appeals setting aside the
order passed in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch.
We have perused the copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed in
W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch (available in the appeal papers from Page No.48
onwards). Our attention is also drawn to a judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court dated 31.10.2016 passed in W.A.No.1088 of 2016 and batch,
wherein there is a reference to the order dated 26.08.2015 in W.P.No.37713 of
2014 and batch being set aside by the Division Bench by judgment dated
19.05.2016 in W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch.
In that view of the matter, we set aside the order under appeal in terms
of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed in W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
IBL
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.122 of 2020
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.122 of 2020
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 24.03.2021
IBL
