M/S Aurobindo Pharma Ltd vs Tramission Corporation Of A.P Ltd ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1351 Tel

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



            Writ Appeal No.1172 of 2009


JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)



      This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order

dated 16.06.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition No.18493 of 2002.


2.    Heard Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel for

the   appellant    and      Sri    S.Ravindranath,               learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that the

appellant Company is engaged in manufacturing of

bulk drugs and intermediaries. The appellant has

availed the electricity supply from the respondents

under H.T. Category and the contracted maximum

demand for the said electricity supply is 1495 KVA at ::2:: HCJ & AKS,J wa_1172_2009

specified voltage of 11 KV, as notified by the then

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Commission. The

appellant had contended that tariff orders were notified

by the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Commission for

the financial years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. For the

above said financial years, certain incentives were

provided to the consumers of HT Category in the form

of discount on the energy rates depending upon the

load factor. The appellant was entitled for the said

incentives, subject to fulfilment of above conditions.

When the above said incentives were not extended, the

appellant has filed W.P.No.18493 of 2002 before this

Court and this Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ

Petition vide Orders dated 16-06-2009, without

appreciating any of the contentions raised by the

appellant.

4. The appellant has further contended that the

appellant has submitted an oral representation to the

respondents to extend the incentives to them. The ::3:: HCJ & AKS,J wa_1172_2009

appellant came to know about the said incentives,

when respondents did not allow incentives in favour of

the appellant because of the pendency of disputed

claim amounts between the appellant and the

respondents. Therefore, the counsel appearing for the

appellant has contended that appropriate orders be

passed in the Writ Appeal by directing the respondents

to extend the incentives, as per the tariffs notified by

the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Commission for

the financial years 2001-02 and 2002-03, as it was

done in the case of other HT category consumers.

5. The counsel appearing for the respondents had

contended that there were certain outstanding

amounts pending by the appellant towards FCA

charges for the year 1997-98, final demand charges

and VCM charges as on 01-04-2001. As appellant has

not cleared outstanding amounts, the appellant was

not entitled for incentives, as notified by the then

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Commission. Accordingly, ::4:: HCJ & AKS,J wa_1172_2009

the appellant was not granted incentives and the

learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ

Petition, with an observation that when the appellant

is claiming incentives under policy declared by the

respondents, the appellant company has to fulfil all

the conditions stipulated therein to become eligible for

incentives. Admittedly, in the instant case, the

appellant has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for

grant of incentives and the learned Single Judge has

rightly dismissed the Writ Petition with following

observations:

"10. When the petitioner-company is claiming incentive under the policy declared by the respondents, the petitioner-company has to fulfill all the conditions stipulated therein to become eligible for the incentives. The eligibility criteria for becoming eligible for incentive is that there shall not be any outstanding dues to the respondents.

11. Indisputably, there were three amounts outstanding. Of course, the petitioner-company claims that there is no final adjudication with regard to two amounts. Be that as it may there is no dispute with regard to outstanding liability of Rs.16,986/- towards FCA charges for the year 1997-98. This liability has been liquidated by the petitioner on 24.7.2002. This fact is evident from the letter dated 24.7.2002 addressed to the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, Medak Circle, Sangareddy. The text of the letter reads as under:

"We understand on enquiry that the following amounts are outstanding in respect of the above service due to which the incentive amounts are not being released.

1) Rs.16,986/- towards FCA charges for the year 1997-98.

                                        ::5::                            HCJ & AKS,J
                                                                       wa_1172_2009




     2)        Rs.6,09,086/- relating to exceeding CMD charges of 150

KVA in view of interim orders of court in WP.No.28402 of

3) Rs.3,46,597/- relating to VCM bills pertaining to the period 24.8.94 by taking into consideration of CMD 475 KVA.

We would like to clarify the position as follows:

1) Please find enclosed the cheque No.076520, dated 24.7.2002 of ICICI bank for Rs.16,986/- towards FCA charges for 1997-98. This item gets cleared with this payment.

2) Rs.6,09,086/- since the amount is covered by court order as per the clarifications given on many occasions by the Director, Commercial the incentive can be released even without payment of this amount. However, we have been informed that general instructions are also given in respect of release of incentives covered by T.O 2002-03 (copy enclosed).

3) Rs.3,46,597/-; copies of the claim, our representation dated 16.7.98 and the letter of Board are enclosed for ready reference. From the above it may be seen that the claim is disputed and final orders are yet to be issued by the Board. Hence, this amount cannot be treated as arrears. Hence, it is requested the incentives due to us are released and adjusted in the C.C. bill for July, 98."

12. It is no more in dispute that after payment of Rs.16,986/-, incentive has been granted as per the policy for the financial year 2001- 02. The petitioner-company is not entitled for incentive since there was undisputed outstanding amount of Rs.16,986/- towards FCA charges. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not granting incentive for the year 2001-02 cannot be found fault."

6. This Court, having considered the rival

submissions of the parties, is of the considered view

that no doubt, any HT category consumer is entitled

for incentives, as notified by the then Andhra Pradesh

Electricity Commission for the financial years 2001-02 ::6:: HCJ & AKS,J wa_1172_2009

and 2002-03. The appellant was not entitled for the

said incentives, on the ground that the appellant has

not cleared the outstanding amounts as on

01-04-2001 and the scheme of granting incentives is a

policy of the respondents and whoever is entitled for

grant of incentives, shall fulfil all the conditions, which

are stipulated for grant of incentives. Therefore, this

Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders

passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date :22.03.2022 AS/KHRM