Maheshwari Ravinder v. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE WRIT PETITION No. 12958 of 2012 Date: 13.04.2016 Between:

Maheshwari Ravinder ... Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep., by its Chairman, Hyderabad & others.

... Respondents This Court made the following:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE WRIT PETITION No. 12958 of 2012 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following relief:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring arrears shown amounting to Rs.21,339/- in Service No.20176 in writ petitioner power loom electricity connection shown in pursuance of theft of electricity as null and void and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." On 27.04.2012, this Court, while disposing of WPMP.No.16178 of 2012, passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as against the provisional assessment amount of Rs.22,770/- demanded in the notice, dated 27.05.2010, he has already paid a sum of Rs.7,590/- on 31.05.2010 and the respondents are threatening to disconnect the power supply pursuant to the fresh bill, dated 07.03.2012, making a demand of Rs.21,339/- under threat of disconnection.

In the circumstances, there shall be interim direction not to disconnect the electricity supply through S.C.No.20176 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay further sum of Rs.2,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned counsel holding for Sri Ch.

Koteshwara Rao, advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, submits that petitioner has deposited the remaining amount also. Having confronted with this, Sri N.Mallaiah, learned counsel holding for Sri B. Shanker, advocate on record for the petitioner, has not disputed the statement made on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ DILIP. B. BHOSALE, ACJ Date: 13.04.2016 ES