Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14097
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
K OTIPALLI SRINIVASA RAO S/O.K.HARIBABU – Appellant
Versus
THE ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 33671/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P NARASIMHA RAO
For the Respondents: SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI, V V SATISH
Court applies consumer protection principles, granting partial relief from regulatory penalties based on later exemptions, distinguishing between types of licenses.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act - Sections regarding Regulatory measures and exemptions - Petitioners sought exemption from penalties levied under Restriction and Control measures - Court considered Proceedings No. APERC/Secy/02/2012-13 dated 22-01-2013, granting exemption only to Prawn Hatcheries - Petitioners have Prawn Culture License, not eligible for exemption under the cited order - Court granted partial relief by applying 50% exemption from penalties as per later proceedings (Ex.P.4) dated 08.08.2013. (Paras 5, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Nature - Court affirmed discretion to issue writs based on assessments of the legality of administrative actions - Emphasized balance in regulatory enforcement against consumer rights and impact.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to declare the levying of penalties and disconnection of power as unlawful, asserting entitlement to exemption from R&C measures due to their prawn culture license.
Findings of Court:
The Writ Petitioners are entitled to a 50% waiver of penalties as specified in later regulatory proceedings, ensuring fairness in enforcement.
Issues: Eligibility for exemption from penalties under the Restriction and Control measures based on their operational license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between prawn hatcheries and prawn culture, recognizing rights enshrined in regulatory orders. The exemption applies only as the Commission permitted, hence partial relief was granted.
Result: Writ Petition is partly allowed, reflecting a balanced approach toward regulatory compliance and consumer protection. No order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim for exemption. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. reliance on regulatory proceedings. (Para 4) |
| 3. court grants partial waiver. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. decision allows partial relief. (Para 9) |
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Narasimha Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri G.
Venkateshwarlu, Ld. Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, Ld. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri Abdul Mateen, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V. Satish, Ld. Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The Writ Petitioners herein have sought the following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring that the action of the 2 to 4 respondents in levying penalties under R&C measures to a sum of Rs.25,10,013/-, disconnecting power supply to petitioners Prawn hatchery unit at RajuBangarampalem village, Vetapalem (M) Prakasam District with SC No 870 LT III A category in the month of Feb2013, collecting Rs.9,42,000/- in 3 monthly installments from him and demanding for payment of balance amount under the threat of disconnecting power supply again, as illegal, unlawful, void, in breach of statutory rules, more particularly against the orders passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No APERC/Secy/02/2012-13 dt 22-01-2013, wherein, the prawn hatcheries are totally exempted from the R&C measures upto 31-3-2013 and hence set aside the same in the interest of justice as the respondents are not permitted to levy penalties and collect the same from his prawn culture unit and to impose a heavy penalty of exemplary costs against 2 to 4 respondents for their unlawful action in the interest of justice and to grant any such other or further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the Writ Petitioners is that they have been granted a Prawn Culture Licence and, therefore, are entitled to exemption from the purview of the Restriction and Control (R&C) Measures issued vide Proceedings No.
APERC/Secy/16/2012-13 dated 01.11.2012.
4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on the Proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission bearing No. APERC/Secy/02/2012-13 dated 22.01.2013 (Ex.P.5). In the alternative, learned Counsel would also submit that the Petitioners are entitled to 50% exemption by virtue of the Orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 08.08.2013 in Proceedings No.
APERC/Secy/154/2013 (Ex.P.4).
5. This Court has perused the document relied on by the Writ Petitioners (Ex.P.5) dated 22.01.2013. On the face of it, the said Proceedings indicate that Prawn Hatcheries are exempted from the purview of the Restriction and Control Measures, whereas the case of the Writ Petitioners is that they have been granted a Prawn Culture Licence. This would indicate that the Petitioners would not be entitled to any exemption from the purview of the Restriction and Control Measures, vide Proceedings dated 22.01.2013 (Ex.P.5), inasmuch as the State Commission has granted the same only in favour of Prawn Hatcheries and not for Prawn Culture.
6. It is also stated by the Official Respondents, on Instructions, that they did not find any Prawn Hatchery on the premises belonging to the Writ Petitioners.
7. This Court has perused the Proceedings passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission bearing No. APERC/Secy/154/2013, dated 08.08.2018 (Ex.P.4). The said Proceedings would indicate that the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, after having considered several aspects and parameters, had granted 50% exemption from the purview of the Restriction and Control Measures. The relevant portion of the said Order is usefully extracted hereunder:
“49. Considering these circumstances in which the whole process of introduction of R&C measures, failure of strict inspection, monitoring
