M/S. Maha Shiv Shakti Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd, v. The Transmission Corporation Of Telangana State,

l32s2l HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6580 OF 2016 Between:

M/S. Maha Shiv Shakti Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd, (S.C. No MBN 823) (Furnace Division) Rep., by its Director t\tlr. Dhiraj Kumar Sonthalia S/o.Late. Sri L4ahavir Prashad Sonthalia, aged about 35 years, H.No 13-6-433/135, Netaji Nagar Colony, lVlehedipatnam Ring Road Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State, (TSTRANSCO) Rep., by its Chairman and A,4anaging Director, Vidhyt Souda, Hyderabad. SLDC rep., by its Chief Engineer TSTRANSCO, Vidhyt Souda, Hyderabad The Southern Power Distributiuon Company Ltd., Telangana State, Rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director The Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), TSPDCL, at [\,4ahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

The Senior Accounts Officer (Operation), TSPDCL, at l\ilahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in introducing Format 'A and Format 'B' in the place of Format in Annexure-l prescribed by APERC under Regulation-2 of 2005 for applying to SLDC, the Nodel Agency for issuance of No Objection Certificate for availing open access Energy as wholly arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and void and consequently direct the respondents to follow Format given in Annexure-l to Regulation-2 of 2005 to issue no objection Certificate

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 8384 OF 2016) 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 direct the respondents I and 2 not to insist production of 'No Due' Certificate from the 3rd respondent DISCOTV for issuing 'No Objection Certificate' for availing Open Access Power by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M P CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY SC FOR TSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER

HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.5s8O of 2016 ORDER:

Heard Sri M,P.Chandra mouli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

ek o Draver The Detition r aooroached the Court s tn as under:

"...to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in introducing Format 'A' and Format'B' in the place of Format in Annexure-I prescribed by APERC under Regulation-2 of 2005 for applying to SLDC, the Nodal Agency for issuance of No Objection Certificate for availing Open Access Energy as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and consequently, direct the respondents to follow Format given in Annexure-I to Regulation-2 of 2005 to issue no objection Certificate and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". 3.

This Court vide its order dated 01.03.2016, passed interim order in W.P.M.P.No.B3B4 of 2016 in W.P.No.6580 of 201Q in favour of the petitioner observing as under:

"Having regard to the fact that in similar matters, interim directions have been granted, there

SN, J wP 65E0 2016 shall be interim direction to the respondents 7 and 2 not to insist the petitioner on furnishing of "No Due Certificate' as a condition precedent while issuing No Objection Certificate for providing open access to the petitioner. "

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner submits that by virtue of the interim orders of this Court dated 01.03.2016 passed in W.P.M.P.No.B3B4 of 2016 in W.p.No.65B0 of 2016, no further orders are necessary.

5.

Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 6.

Bringing the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, the writ petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

SD/. A. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT.RE A REDDY GISTRAR ,TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. M P CHANDRAMOULI Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI R. VINOD REDDY SC FOR TSPDCL [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies KKS GJP u

HIGH COURT DATED:2511012024 t S r € 0 7 ,lAil 2025 e

ORDER

'J o ('

o o WP.No.6580 of 2016 {'

gO ,| c t) aT CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS bl "l"l