Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA
Mahavir Ferroalloys – Appellant
Versus
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
WRI T PETI TI ON No.21052 OF 2011
Heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“........to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in Levying and Demanding Penal Charges from the petitioner for the billing month June 2011 relying on Clause-5 of the Tariff Order for the FY 2011-2012 and as illegal without jurisdiction and void and pass…..”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present w rit petition, is as under:
a) It is the case of petitioner that, the petitioner is FerroAlloy Industry and the Tariff applicable is under H.T.I.B. As per Clause 5 of the Tariff Order for HT.I Category, it is evident that in any month if the recorded maximum demand (RMD) of the consumer exceeds his contracted maximum demand (CMD), depending upon the percentage of excess RDM the c
The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal in CMA No.2485 of 2003 rendered the basis for the writ petitions untenable, and the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as determined by the impugned order....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in billing disputes, affirming that natural justice principles apply even in electronic billing contexts.
The calculation sheet provided to the petitioner cannot be treated as an order of assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The demand raised in the form of the calculation sheet is ....
The regulatory authority may revise tariffs after public hearings, and the prior benefits of deemed demand charges were legally replaced by subsequent tariff orders, negating claims of improper cance....
When a court explicitly directs an authority to reconsider a decision in light of specific judicial precedents, the authority must demonstrably address such precedents; failure to do so warrants judi....
The absence of regulations does not invalidate the Board's authority to set Grid Tariffs under the Electricity (Supply) Act, provided such tariffs adhere to the principles outlined within the Act.
The validity of electricity supply regulations was upheld; the court emphasized the necessity for natural justice, quashing vague notices and orders lacking due process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
