Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A One Ispat Pvt Ltd., vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 25 November, 2024
APHC010033042015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 21270 OF 2015
Between:
A One Ispat Pvt Ltd., ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
2. K VENKATA RAMANA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
mandamus declaring that the petitioner is eligible for the power cost reimbursement
th
at Rs. 0.75 ps per unit of power consume by its from the 4 respondent DISCOM as
per G.O.Ms.No.61 Industries and Commerce Department, dated 29.06.2010 read
with G.O.Ms.No.42 Industries and Commerce Department, dated 05.05.2011 and
consequently direct respondents 1 to 3 to grant reimbursement of power cost to the
petitioner from November-2012 onwards and pass such other orders...."
2. Heard Mr. V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Sudeepti Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mines and
Geology for the respondents.
3. Though the petitioners made several allegations against the
respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner
requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the
representation dated 07.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner in terms of G.Os
existed, without touching the merits of the case.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents
submitted that the respondent authorities will consider the representation
dated 07.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner in terms of existing rules and
G.Os as per directions of this Court. In view of the same, I need not decide the
truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.
5. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1,
wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may be passed for a quick or
easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but, they do
not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner
himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated
2019 (8) SCALE 544
07.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to
issue such direction.
6. In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the
respondent to dispose of representation submitted by the petitioner dated
07.11.2014 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 29.06.2010 read with
G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 05.05.2011 and also G.O.Ms.No.178, dated 21.06.2005
within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
_______________________
DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 25.11.2024
KK
