M/S Colgatepamolive India ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 594 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.2676 of 2022
                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      Date                        ORDER                          OFFICE
No.                                                                 NOTE


      03.02.2022   AVSS,J
                        According to the petitioner, it is a

                   company incorporated in the year 1937 and

                   is engaged in the production of oral care

                   products such as toothpaste, toothbrush,

                   mouthwash      under    the   brand     called

                   "Colgate". In the year 2016, the petitioner

                   started toothbrush production plant at Sri

                   City, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District

                   and for the purpose of production activities,

                   the petitioner entered into a HT Agreement

                   with the 2nd respondent for supply of

power. It is also stated that the petitioner

company installed solar power plant of

1.788 MW at its premises and the energy

produced therein is being used exclusively

for the purpose of the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that Section 9 of the

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Act, 2003 (for

short „The Act‟) stipulates that no license is

required under the Act for supply of electricity, generated from a captive

generation plant, to any licensee in

accordance with the provisions of the Act

and the Rules and Regulations made under

Sub-Section (2) of Section 42 of the Act.

It is further submitted by the learned

counsel that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

the case of Maharastra State Electricity

Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. JSW

Steel Limited and others (AIR 2022 SC

89) held that so far as the captive

consumers/ captive users are concerned,

they are not liable to pay the additional

surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Act.

While, referring to the above said provisions

of law and the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court and while contending

further that the impugned action of raising

the bill dated 05.01.2022, is highly illegal,

arbitrary and unreasonable, it is submitted

by the learned counsel that before levying

such abnormal amount, no show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 seeks time to get

instructions. It is submitted by the learned

Standing Counsel that he will instruct the

respondent authorities not to take any further coercive action in respect of the

petitioner‟s Service Connections.

Post on 07.02.2022 in the Motion

List.

________ AVSS,J

BSP