In this batch of writ petitions, orders dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short “the Commission”) in O.P.Nos.39 to 54 of 2011 pertaining to the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (for short “FSA”) have been questioned. In some of these writ petitions, orders of even date in O.P.Nos.23 to 38 of 2011 pertaining to the FSA for the financial year 2008-09 are also questioned.

The brief background, in which these writ petitions came to be filed, needs to be summarized. The A.P. Power Co-ordination Committee filed applications on behalf of the four Distribution Companies (for short “the DISCOMs”) in the State of Andhra Pradesh for determination of the FSA. Under Regulation 45-B of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 (for short “the 1999 Regulations”) as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) First Amendment Regulations, 2000 and also Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Amendment Regulation 1 of 2003 (for short “the Regulation 1 of 2003). The Commission has allowed the applications by orders dated 05.06.2010 whereby it has permitted the DISCOMs to levy the FSA for the financial year 2008-2009. The said orders were challenged in a huge batch of writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitions, disposed of the same by a common judgment dated 29.07.2011. Briefly stated, the learned Single Judge held that the Andhra Power Co-ordination Committee not being a licensee as defined under Section 2(39) of the Electricity Act, 2003, has no locus standi to file the applications before the Commission claiming the FSA on behalf of the DISCOMs, that under Regulation 55 of the 1999 Regulations, the Commission has no inherent power to condone the delay enabling it to entertain the applications claiming the FSA beyond the time prescribed under Regulation 45-B (4) thereof, that however, the Commission has the power to condone the delay in filing the applications by the licensees claiming the FSA even beyond the time prescribed under Regulation 59 thereof, and that while considering the applications filed by the licensees claiming the FSA, the Commission has to follow the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, set aside the orders dated 05.06.2010 of the Commission and allowed the writ petitions.

Feeling aggrieved by the said common order, several consumers filed Writ Appeal Nos.858 of 2011 and batch. Pending the writ appeals, the DISCOMs have filed applications before the Commission for determination of the FSA for both the years, namely, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Division Bench permitted the Commission to go-ahead with the hearing of the O.Ps and pass final orders with a further direction that the orders, if any, passed shall not be implemented. Shortly after the said order was passed, the Division Bench allowed the batch of writ appeals by common judgment dated 20.01.2012 (M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad Vs. A.P. Regulatory Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others (2012 (2) ALD 739). In the said judgment, the Division Bench held that as the amended Regulation 45-B (4) makes it explicit that failure to abide by the time stipulated therein enjoins forfeiture of future claims by the DISCOMs in that regard, the Commission cannot exercise its power under Regulation 59 of the 1999 Regulations to enlarge time in a situation covered by the amended Regulation 45-B (4). The Division Bench further held that as the applications filed by the DISCOMs were beyond the time limit prescribed by Regulation 45-B (4) of the 1999 Regulations as amended, the Commission ought not to have maintained those applications. Accordingly, the Division Bench held that the claims of the DISCOMs were hopelessly time barred.

In view of the fact that a few days before the Division Bench has deliver