HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONS No. 13281, 13359 OF 2020, 34344, 34405, 35262, 35266, 35268, 35269, 35872, 35873, 36929, 36942, 36944, 37048, 37076, 37436 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

The above batch of Writ Petitions was filed impugning the notices of disconnection demanding the differential wheeling charges, losses and interest thereon, on the energy consumed by the petitioners from private generating companies, purported to be basing on the tariff orders issued by the erstwhile A P Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) for the FY 2002-03 onwards, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of petitioners is that wheeling agreements were entered into by various generating companies and the erstwhile APSEB/AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs (Licensees) under which the present issue arises, providing for wheeling charges in kind, to be paid by the generating companies to the licensees. These agreements were entered into prior to the establishment of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) under the provisions of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1998. After APERC is constituted, it determined the wheeling charges to be paid by the generating companies in cash and also in kind for the losses applicable from FY 2002-2003 onwards in OP No. 510 of 2001. Questioning the order of APERC passed in OP No. 510 of 2001 dated 24.3.2002 in fixing wheeling charges for FY 2002-

03 as contrary to the agreements entered into between the generating companies and APSEB/AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs on the ground that APERC lacked jurisdiction to determine the wheeling charges contrary to the wheeling agreement, some of the generating companies and some consumers approached this Court by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1015 of 2002 and batch and also Writ Petitions. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.04.2003 set aside the order of the APERC passed in OP No. 510 of 2001 dated 24.03.2002 by holding that APERC lacks jurisdiction to fix the wheeling charges under the provisions of the 1998 Act besides declaring that the rights of the parties under the concluded contracts cannot be altered and further the charges fixed were held to be irrational and exorbitant.

2.1. Aggrieved thereby, AP TRANSCO filed Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 2003 and batch before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pending Appeals, APERC also determined the wheeling charges for 2003 onwards, which orders were challenged by some of the generating companies and consumers by filing Appeals before APTEL which allowed the Appeals by setting aside the order of APERC based on the order passed by this Court as against which Civil Appeal No. 7029 of 2008 and batch were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By its judgment dated 29.11.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed all the Appeals and set aside the judgment of Division Bench of this Court and the order passed by APTEL, by restoring the order passed by APERC.

2.2. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, impugned notices were issued to petitioners, demanding differential transmission/wheeling charges, loss and interest charges thereon from consumers. In that view of the matter, the present Writ Petitions came to be filed on the ground that there is no privity of contract between petitioners and respondents for charging the differential wheeling charges, transmission charges and losses from petitioners, who are consumers of the generators and also that the generators have agreements with respondent-licensees, therefore, any differential wheeling charges, transmission charges, losses are only to be collected from the generators and not from petitioners.

2.3. In the meanwhile, A.P. Reorganisation Act came into force whereby the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. The present impugned notices are issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the consumers instead of generators who had agreement with respondents. It is further stated that