Since both these Writ Petitions have been filed questioning the imposition of power restrictions and prescription of penalties, they are heard and being disposed of together.

The petitioner in W.P.No.29621/2012 is a H.T. consumer of respondent No.2-DISCOM. It has a contracted demand of 1600 KVA with a connected load of 2000 KW. The power is being supplied under the H.T. agreement dated 28-1-2010. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by proceedings No.APERC/Secy/3/2012-13, dated 7-9-2012 of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission-respondent No.3 herein (for short "the APERC") to the extent it has prescribed the penal charges for non-compliance of restrictions and control measures. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that there is no justification for imposition of power cuts which altogether come to around 64%, while the shortage of power is only to the extent of 14%. Alternatively, the petitioner pleaded that even if the respondents have justification to impose power cuts, the APERC has no power to prescribe penalties for violation of the restrictions imposed by it and respondent No.2-DISCOM has no power to levy and recover such penalties.

Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that any penalty can be levied under specific statutory provisions; that wherever the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the 2003 Act") intended to empower the licensees to levy and collect penalties, it has made express provisions for that purpose. To illustrate the same, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to Sections 29, 33, 43, 140, 144 and 170 of 2003 Act. In support of his pleas, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following Judgments :

Tolaram Relumal Vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1954 S.C. 496), Sanjay Dutt Vs. State, through C.B.I., Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 410), State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Azad Bharat Finance Co. (AIR 1967 S.C. 276), O. Konavalov Vs. Commander, Coast Guard Region (2006) 4 SCC 620), Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I (2007) 9 SCC 665), Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vs. J.K. Johnson (2011) 10 SCC 794), Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India Vs. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (2007) 12 SCC 210).

The learned Senior Counsel has distinguished the Judgment in The Adoni Cotton Mills Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board (1976) 4 SCC 68) on the ground that the said Judgment was rendered under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short "the 1910 Act") and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short "the 1948 Act"). He has also submitted that the said Judgment has not noticed the Judgments in Tolaram Relumal (1-supra) and O. Konavalov (3-supra) and that therefore the same cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. Opposing the above submissions, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-DISCOM, has heavily relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in The Adoni Cotton Mills (8-supra). He has taken the Court through the relevant provisions of the 1910 Act, the 1948 Act and the 2003 Act, and has pleaded that even though the first mentioned two Acts were repealed by the latter Act, in view of parity in the statutory provisions between the 1910 Act, the 1948 Act and the 2003 Act, the ratio laid down in The Adoni Cotton Mills (8-supra) still continues to hold the field.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Respondent No.2-DISCOM along with the three other Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) which are involved in the supply of power to the consumers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, approached the APERC with a representation seeking the latter's permission to impose restrictions on the power supply. Accordingly, the APERC has issued the above noted proceedings dated 7-9-2012. In the said proceedings, the APERC has taken note of the energy deficit in the State during