THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31739 of 2013 Dated: 10.12.2014 Between:
M/s. The K.C.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director Smt Kavitha D. Chitturi .. Petitioner and Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., State Load Dispatch Centre, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Challa Gunaranjan Counsel for the respondents: Mr. O. Manoher Reddy The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the letter issued by the 4th respondent in Lr.No.SE/O/VJA/SAO/JAO-HT/R2/A3/D.No.1024/13 dated 05.08.2013 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,11,75,107/- towards penalty purported to be on account of exceeding PDL and PCL for the months of November, 2012 to June, 2013 without reconciling for the power and demand consumed by the petitioner company through Short Term Open Access from M/s. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd, (GEPL) on the basis of 15 minutes time block in terms of Tariff Order dated 30.3.2012 issued by APERC and the consequential letter of the 4th respondent issued in Lr.No.SE/O/VJA/SAO/JAO-HT/R2/A3/D.No.1100/13 dt.22.08.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Open Access in inter state Transmission) Regulations, 2008 and violative of petitioners right guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to issue revised bills for the months of November, 2012 to June, 2013 strictly in accordance with the R&C orders issued by the APERC.”
Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has circulated a letter to the Registry on 08.12.2014, wherein he has stated that pending the writ petition, the respondents have revised the disputed demand through letters dated 17.06.2014 and 22.08.2014 and that in view of the same, the petitioner has instructed him to withdraw the writ petition.
In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.39439 of 2013 and 38199 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th December, 2014 IBL