ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner for the following relief:

".....to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Direction order or orders declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to renew the power purchase and wheeling agreement, dated 29.1.2000 entered between the 1st respondent APTRANSCO and the petitioner as communicated in the Lr. No. CGM/Projects & IPC/APSPDCL/F, Sudalagunta/D. No. 44/2019, dated 6.6.2019, of the 5th respondent as wholly arbitrary, illegal, offending the principles of Natural Justice and void and consequently direct the respondents to renew the said agreement for a period of twenty years with the same terms and conditions...."

2. Heard, Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Shiva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7.

3. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents.

Facts in brief:

4. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is a Company that has been incorporated in the year, 1994 under the Companies Act. It established a Sugar Factory along with captive power generation plant of 3 MW. The petitioner company entered into an agreement with the erstwhile APSEB on 4.3.1998 called power purchase and wheeling agreement. As per this agreement, the power produced by the petitioner company could be consumed; be sold to third party consumers; it could also be banked with the APSEB, etc. Later, after the advent of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, a fresh agreement was entered into with APTRANSCO on 29.1.2000. This agreement was also agreed by all the statutory authorities. Learned Counsel submits that from the year 2000 onwards, the agreement was in-operation. He draws the attention of this Court to Article 9 of the said agreement which is as follows:

"Article 9. Duration of agreement:

This Agreement shall be effective upon its execution and delivery thereof between parties hereto and shall continue in force from the schedule date of completion and until the twentieth (20th) anniversary that is for a period of twenty years from the Scheduled Date of Completion, and this Agreement may be renewed for such further period of time and on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, 90 days prior to the expiry of the said period of twenty years".

5. Learned Counsel submits that basing on the said article the petitioner company exercised its option for a renewal by addressing an appropriate letter, dated 30.1.2019, which, however, was rejected by the 4th respondent by their letter, dated 6.6.2019. In view of the said rejection, the present writ petition came to be filed.

Submissions:

6. The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner has established an industry at a great cost and that the industry is generating power. It is his contention that the rejection of the request by the 4th respondent by their letter, dated 6.6.2019 is incorrect. He states that any subsequent modification or change in the law will not apply, because, the petitioner has entered into an agreement based on the initial representations and the promises made by the APSEB. He submits that the petitioner is a "co-generator" of power and is not an open access generator of power. He submits that this is clearly spelt out in Para 4 of the writ affidavit itself wherein he clearly stated that as a co-generator of power the petitioner is entitled to sell the power to scheduled customers and that the surplus energy can be purchased by the said Electricity Board. In addition, the policy which is referred to in the said paragraph also provides for banking of the unallocated power. He points out that the agreement has to be renewed periodically and it does not contain stipulation limiting it to a fixed period of time. He submits that Article 9 provides for the e