ORDER :

The above three Writ Petitions involve common issues and common parties and therefore, they were clubbed and heard together and are disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

2. Facts and issues involved in each of the cases are as under:

W.P.NO.56 OF 2014

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in

(i) determining the payment of electricity charges vide provisional revised demand notice dated 23.10.2013 and the revised demand notice dated 10.12.2013, on the basis of the demand and consumption calculated, by taking a block of 15 minutes as a unit for determining compliance with R&C measures; and

(ii) further threatening to disconnect the electricity to the petitioner’s premises on failure to produce the proof of payment of the above demanded amount;

as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the revised demand notices dt.23.10.2013 and 10.12.2013 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.56 of 2014 are that the petitioner company was incorporated with the object of operating and running Spinning Mills and in the process, it has transacted with AP Transco for supply of power to its unit and has been operating a spinning mill from the year 2001. The petitioner has been availing power supply under HT-1 category with service connection No.HT.SC No.ADB 247 and claims to have been making regular payments in respect of consumption charges for the power consumed till January, 2013.

5. It is submitted that in the year 2012, due to acute shortage of power that was confronting the State of A.P., on the representations made by APCPDCL and the Zonal Distribution Companies including the 1st respondent herein, the APERC issued an order of Restriction and Control measures (‘R&C measures’ in short) vide order dt.07.09.2012 imposing restrictions of power supply. Thereafter, the said measures were revised vide proceedings dt.01.11.2012, wherein specific conditions/provisions with respect to distribution companies, licensees, consumers have been laid out, and Clause 19(a) thereof provided that billing demand shall be the maximum recorded demand during the month and Clause 19(e) provided that licensees shall grant permission for non-discriminatory open access to all HT consumers. In view of the above, apart from the power supply through DISCOMs, consumers were permitted to purchase power through open access from any private power exchange, which, in effect, relaxed the restrictive measures on power supply for consumers like petitioner’s industry to avail uninterrupted power supply. The billing for the power used by the petitioner shall be on the Maximum Recorded Demand during the month, i.e., on the total consumption of electricity.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner has obtained permission for open access and also obtained “Standing Clearance”/”No Objection Certificate” from the Chief Engineer/SLDC, AP TRANSCO through Power Exchange from February, 2013. Thus, in order to fulfill the shortfall of power supply by DISCOMs due to R&C measures, the petitioner has been availing open access power at higher rates for energy over and above the maximum consumption fixed by APERC in its R&C measures from 23.01.2013 onwards. Therefore, the total power demand consisted of the power supplied by DISCOMs and the power purchased through open access from a private supplier through Power Exchange. Consequently, billing of electricity by the respondents was to be calculated by deducting the demand component of open access power/energy from the entire recorded demand, but because of not considering the demand component through open access, and due to considering the open access power supply along with power supply through DISCOMs as the Maximum Recorded Demand while preparing the bill, the petitioner and other consumers had received exorbitant bills.

7. Since the petitioner was utilizing the powe