M/S. Jairaj Ispat Limited, Hyd vs Transmission Corp. 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 939 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



                WRIT APPEAL No.1290 of 2009

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.10930 of 2000.

     The order passed on 22.01.2009 in W.P.No.10930 of

2000 is reproduced as under:-

             "This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that
    the proceedings of the AP TRANSCO in levying the voltage
    surcharge amount as per the tariff notification vide BPMS
    No.62 (Commercial and Operation), dated 28.12.1998 as
    arbitrary and illegal.
             When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is
    brought to my notice by the learned counsel for both the
    parties that W.P.No.14921 of 1999 and batch in which an
    identical levy was challenged was dismissed by this Court by
    common order dated 22.09.2008.
             Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated,
    following the above said order, this Writ Petition shall stand
    dismissed. No costs.


     Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough in

informing this Court that against the common order dated

22.09.2008 passed in W.P.No.14921 of 1999 and batch,
                                      2




large number of writ appeals were preferred and a Division

Bench of this Court has passed a common judgment in

W.A.No.87 of 2009 and other connected matters on

23.06.2016. The common judgment passed in W.A.No.87

of 2009 and other connected matters is reproduced as

under:-

             "This batch of writ appeals is arising from order dated
    22.9.2008 in Writ Petition Nos. 14921 of 1999 and batch.
    Review petitions tagged with this batch seek review of the very
    same order on the ground that several other questions/points,
    though, were argued at length before learned Single Judge,
    were not considered and dealt with.
             Learned   counsel    appearing   for   the   parties,   in
    particular, appellants-writ petitioners, invited our attention the
    impugned judgment and submitted that the only question
    considered and dealt with by learned Single Judge was whether
    there is any illegality in the orders of respondents in imposing

voltage surcharge on the petitioners ? and whether petitioners are entitled for any relief as prayed for? Then, they invited our attention to the grounds of appeal and also averments in the review petitions to submit that though other questions were also raised and argued before learned Single Judge at great length, they are not referred to and considered at all. It was further pointed out that the proceeding, i.e., B.P. Ms. No. 62, dated 28.12.1998 was challenged in some of the writ petitions and arguments were also advanced, but that was not considered and dealt with by learned Single Judge.

Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel submitted that even while dealing with aforesaid questions, learned Single Judge did not refer to all submissions advanced by them nor did he consider the question in the light thereof in proper

perspective. In the circumstances, they prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and for remitting the petitions to learned single Judge to consider them afresh. It was also submitted that most of the appellants-writ petitioners have paid half of the amount demanded and some of the petitioners have paid even the entire amount and in view thereof, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.

When learned counsel appearing for the respondents was confronted with these submissions, he could not and did not dispute correctness thereof. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, we pass the following order:

1) The judgment dated 22.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 14921 of 1999 and batch is set aside. The writ petitions are restored to file. Learned Single Judge having roaster to hear and decide these petitions, shall consider the writ petitions afresh. We request learned. Single Judge to decide these petitions expeditiously. It is open to learned counsel for the parties to apply for fixed date of hearing before learned Single Judge.

2) We keep all contentions/questions open to be raised and considered by learned Single Judge.

3) It is needless to mention that the writ petitioners, wherever it is necessary, shall amend cause title within a period of two weeks from today by way of memos. Filing of the affidavit in support of the amendment of cause title is dispensed with.

4) The payments already made by the petitioners would be subject to out come of the writ petitions.

In view of this order, the review petitions have rendered infructuous and stand disposed of as such. The writ appeals are accordingly allowed.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand closed. No costs."

In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order

passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the

matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge.

Registry is directed to list W.P.No.10930 of 2000

before the learned Single Judge having roster on

11.04.2022.

The common judgment passed in W.A.No.87 of 2009

and other connected matters dated 23.06.2016 shall be

applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case also.

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

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

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

28.02.2022 vs