Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
SREE TIRUMALA RICE MILLS PITHAPURAM E.G.DIST. – Appellant
Versus
THE A.P.E.P.D.C.L. VISAKHAPATNAM & 4 OTRS. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 23121/2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None appeared
For the Respondents: V V Satish
A writ petition may be closed if the grievance regarding electricity tariff classification is redressed through updated regulatory guidelines permitting the desired supply category.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a demand notice and seeking a direction to be treated under the L.T. - III Category instead of the H.T. Category - I, requesting adjustment of excess amounts collected. The court noted that the respondent corporation submitted instructions stating that per APERC guidelines and the Tariff effective from 01.04.2021, rice mills and pulverising units up to 150 HP are permitted under LT Supply, removing the need to switch to HT Supply. The primary issue was whether the demand notice was illegal and if the petitioner was entitled to LT supply classification. The court observed that based on the written instructions from the respondent authorities, the grievance in the lis had already been redressed as the current guidelines permit the petitioner to continue under LT supply. In view of the above, the writ petition is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of writ petition for tariff reclassification and procedural status of representation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. redressal of grievance through updated regulatory guidelines regarding lt supply for rice mills. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. closure of proceedings upon satisfaction of the claim. (Para 5 , 6) |
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing that the Demand Notice No. ADE/OSD/PTP/F.No. DOC/D.No. 947/ 2010, dated 16-08-2010 is illegal, without jurisdiction and without any authority of law and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the petitioner herein under L.T. - III Category and adjust the excess amount collected, under H.T. Category - I in the future Bills.
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WVMP 5923 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders passed on 17-09-2010 in WPMP No.29506 of 2010 in WP No.23121 of 2010 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2010(WPMP 29506 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notice No. ADE/OSD/PTP/F.No. DOC/D.No. 947/ 2010, dated 16-08-2010, issued by the 3rd Respondent herein, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. None appeared
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 23121 of 2010
ORDER:-
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:
“….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing that the Demand Notice No. ADE/OSD/PTP/F.No. DOC/D.No. 947/ 2010, dated 16-08-2010 is illegal, without jurisdiction and without any authority of law and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the petitioner herein under L.T. - III Category and adjust the excess amount collected, under H.T. Category - I in the future Bills.….”
2. It is apt to note that the counsel for petitioner Sri P.R. Prasad is no more, this Court directed the registry on 24.02.2026 to issue notice to the petitioner to take alternative arrangements. Consequently, registry of this Court put up a note on 05.05.2026 that, petitioner Notice Item delivered as per postal track report. Despite the serving of notice none appeared for the petitioner.
3. Conversely, learned Standing counsel for the respondents forwarded written instructions dated 20.03.2025 from the respondent/corporation authorities. It clearly reveals as under:
“As per the recent APERC guidelines and from the Tariff 01.04.2021, Rice mills & Pulverising units are permitted up to 150 HP in LT Supply. Hence, as per the standing instructions from APERC, there is no need to switch over HT Supply and the consumer is permitted to continue under LT Supply.”
4. By placing the above written instructions dated 20.03.2025 on record, the learned counsel for the respondents submits cause in the lis already redressed and prays this Court to close the writ petition. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, no further orders are required in the matter.
5. In view of the above, by placing the written instructions dated 20.03.2025 on record, the writ petition is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out legal remedies if any in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
