Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

[ 3376 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH OAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOO KUMAR Writ Aooeal Nos.21 s3.21il.21s5.2156.2'.t57, 2158, 2159.2160.2161,2162.2163.2164. 2',165.2166. 2167.2168 ot 2004; and Writ Petition No.8964 of 2OO4 and Writ Appeal Nos.58.59. 60. 61. 62. 63.64. 257. 268. 269. 807.892. 893 894.895.897.898.899. 900. 901. 902,903.904, 905.910.911 .912.'1297, 1298. 1299.1300 1301. 't305. 1600. 1601. 1607 and 2300 of 2005 WRIT APPEAL No.:21s3 0F 2004 Between: Shri V-S. Narang ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated oa]tz_zoina and made in wp No.9160 ot 2oo4 on the fib of the HQh court. trilv Home cement lndustries Ltd.,4th Floor, My Home Jupally, Gleenlands, iil,;;;;;i Xil; ii;;;bao--soo bto A.P., Re[', bv its Director (rechnicar) AND 1 Transmission corooration of AP Ltd., Vidyut soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad i"p , uy its Chairnian and Managing Director Central Power Distribution Company of A'P'-Ltd', Singareni Bhavan' Red iliii,'HVo6iJ.Z, ,.p.' ov its Ch'aimian and Managing Director' 3.AndhraPradeshGasPowerCorporationLtd.,#-201,2ndFloor,IMy.Home. " 's;;;;;r'i6;;: secietariainoxl nv&raoao-soo 063' rep ' bv its Manasing Director. 2 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO: 3903 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, itre High Court may be pleased. to direct tne respondents 1 and 2 not to disconnecl the power supply in connection

2 with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to state-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRt R, VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LTMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 2154 OF 2004 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent filed against the Order dt. 6-12-2004 made in W.P.No. 91 54 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: lvVs. Chaanakya Cements Ltd, Now transferred as M/s penna Cemenl lndustries Ltd, Plot No. 703. Srinikethan Colony, Road No.3, Baniara Hills. Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman P. pratap Reddy (Transfened as'oer Govt. of lndia Ministry of Finance, Department of Company affairs dt.19.07.2004) .APPELLANT/PETITIONER ANO 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Directbr. 2. Central Power Distnbution Company of A.P. Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Dirdctor. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Lld, #2O1,2nd Floor. Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretanat Road, Hyderabad - 5O0 063, rep. by iti Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocating power by the 3rd respondent. NO: 1 OF 200 AMP. NO: 3904 OF 2004 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRt R. VTNOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt M. KARTHTK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Order made in W'P 9220 ot 2OO4 dt. 06.12.2004- on the file o[ the High Court' WRIT APPEAL NO:2155 OF 2004 Between: AND 1 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2OOZI{WAMP. NO: 390s oF 2004) WRIT APPEAL NO: 2156 OF 2OO4 sree Ravalaseema Alkalies and Allied, Chemicals Limited' Vasanthanagar fir.ooi, i.p. UV its Chairman and Managing Director, T.G. Venkatesh' ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER 2 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyd, rep' by its Chairman and Managing Director. central Power Distribution company of A.P. Ltd..Singareni bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. rep. by its Chairman ard Managing Director. 3. A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1' 2nd-Fh,or, My-Home Sarovar Plaza, -' Secietiriat Road, Hid-500 063. rep. by its Managing Director' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 Direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation oi po*"'. by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. counselfortheAppellant:SRTPRASHANTHvRNFoRM/s.INDUSLAwFIRM counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) counser for the Respondent No.3: 33'r*r$J|l13frIfl:5|ffirrcN LrMrrED writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order dt 611212004 made in WP.9166/2004 on the file of the High Court' Between: SriDhana|akshmiCottonandriceMillsPvt.Ltd.'Eg.d.OfficeGanapavaram Vi;-Chil;6r;,di, Guntur Dist. rep by its Managing Director Mr' N Ragahava Rao ...APPELLANT/PET'r'.NER

4 AND l.A. 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. rep by Chairman and Managing Director 2. Southem Power Distribution Company A.P.Ltd., 19-3-1 3, Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi-S17 50i, r+ by its Chairman And Managing Director 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., 201 , 2nd Floor,My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad 500 063. rep by M'anaging Director. NO: 1 OF 2004{wAMP. NO: 3906 OF 2004 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppoi't of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRt R. VTNOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENKAT CHALLA (SC FOR Ap TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt M. KARTHTK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 2157 OF 2Oo4 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 06-12-2004 in W.P.No.9165l2OO4 ort the file of the High Court. Between: The lndia Cements Ltd., Havin Anna Salai Chennai, rep. by its Gopinath. g_ its Registered Office at 'Dhun Building' 827 Dy. General Manager-Corporate Affairs, Mr. l. ...APPELLANT/PETIT]ONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep.by its Chairman and lvlanaging Director. 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.ttd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. rep.by its Chairman and Managing Diredtor. 3. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.p.Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupati-s1 7S01 . rep.by its Ctrairmin- and Managing Director.

5 4 Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd , # 201, -2nd -floor'.Myt{ome $;;;r'PA;;,'secretaiiat Road, Hyderabad' rep'by its Managing Director' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 1 5'l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to iir""i tnu respondents 1 to 3 not to disconnect the power supply in connection *itt tnl ".n.rmption of surplus power by the petitio.ner relating to stage-ll as per "fil"rtion of power by the 4ih respondent pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. vlNoo REDDY (Sc FoR TS TRANSCo) Gbunsel for the Respondent No'3: SRI VENKAT CHALLA (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) counseI for the Respondent No'4: 3E'#'.S"JItl13fi:tt5H}B|1floN LrMrrED t.A. NO: 1 0F 200(WAMP. NO: 3907 OF 2004) WRIT APPEAL NO: 21s8 0F 2004 Dedia. AND l.A. NO:'l oF2 AMP. NO: 3908 0F 2004) WritAppealunderclause15oftheLettersPatentagainsttheorderdt. 06-12-2004, in W.P.No-9164/04 on the file of the High Court' Between: Vinavaka Steels Limited, 5'4-83-85' 1st floor' T'S'K'Chambers' R'No'4 and ;i'iieh;;,'5.ir"ii,,o,o iep' ov its Manasins Director' Mr'Vinod Kumar ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER 'l . Transmission Corporation of A'P' Ltd- Vidyut S1!rdha.' Khairatabad' '' Hyt;;i;;;. ;"p.ov it" cnaitman and Managing Director' 2.CentralPowerDistributionCompanyo{A'P'Ltd''.SingareniBhvan'RedHills' -' HyOeraUaU. rep-by its Chairman and Managing dlrector' 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation.Ltd', # 2O1' 2fid flcor' My Home -' Sarorir plaza, rep.by its Managing Director' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Sectton 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power supply in c'onnection

6 with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocation of power by the 3rd respondents pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW F|RM counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: sRl R. vlNoD REDDY (sc FoR TS TRANSCO) counser ror the Respondent No'3 : lElB;.HI,l[BfiIAtSHffit roN LrMrrED WRIT APPEAL NO: 2159 0F 2004 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order in dated 06-12-2004 in W.P.No. 9159 of 2004, on the file of the High Court. Between: AND 1 Sheetal thipping And Metal Processors Ltd., 5-5-103 to 105/6, 1st floor, HJfri *"f.flfi%s,Ti!p,"i' secunderabad, iep.by its tr,ranishs rji,"it"i ...APPELLANT 2 3 I: f rslq1 g.rporationof A. P. Ltd., Mdyut Soud ha, Khaira bad, Hydera bad. rep.oy lts uhairrnan and Managing Director. central Power Distribution company of A.p.Ltd., Singareni Bhavan. Red Hi[s, Hyderabad. rep.by its Chairman an<j Managing birecior. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd_, # 2O1, 2nd floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad. rep. f;,its ffrfanai;in6 Di-r;;tor. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAM P. NO: 3909 0F 2004) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ihe Hign court may be preased to direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power suppry in connection with the consumption of surprus power by the petitioner rerating iostage-l as per allocation of power by the- 3rd respondents pending disposal oitne wrii appeat. counse! for the Appellant: SRI pRASHAI,ITH vRt,! FoR M/s. INDUS LAw FrREi counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: sRr R. vrNoD REDDY (sc FoR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

7 WRIT APPEAL NO: 2160 OF 2oO4 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the Order dt. 6-12-2004 made in W.P.No. 9158 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: Hindustan Sanitaryware And lndustries Limited, Glass Division, Glass Factory Road, Off Motinagar, P.B. No. 1930, Sanathnagar P.O. Hyderabad, rep. by its President Mr. Arun Kumar Dukkipati. AND ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd, #2O1,2N Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad- 500 063, Rep. by its Managing Director' ...RES'.NDENT./RE.'.NDENTS .A. NO:1 2 AMP. NO: 3910 OF 2004 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 direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to Stage - ll as per allocation of power by the 3rd respondent. counsel for the Appellant: sRl PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INOUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOO REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: sRl M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRITAPPEAL NO: 2161 OF 2004 Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters Patent against Order made in W.P.No. 9156 of 2004 dt. 06.12.2004, on the file of the High Court. Between: The Andhra Sugars Ltd., PB No.2, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku-S34 215 rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director Dr. Mullapudi Harichardra Prasad .APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director

8 2. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., 30-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhavan' Opp.Saraswati Park, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam-530 020. 3. Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupati-S17 501, rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director 4. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1 ,2.rd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-SO0 063, rep., by its Managing Director. Between: Sri Shiva Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd., 21-2$31, Urdugalli, Pathergafti, Hyderabad 500 002 rep by its Managing Director Sri Kantilal Agarwal. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO:3911 0F 2004) 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 Direct the respondent 1 to 3 not to disconnect the power supply in conneciion with the consumption of supplies power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocation of power by the 4th respondents pending disposal of the W.A. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. GOPAL CHOUDARY, SENIOR COUNSEL for SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAw FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRMNKAT CHALLA (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 2162 OF 2004 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order dl 611212004 made in WP 1O14312OO4 on the file of the High Court. AND 1 ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER ) Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman and Managing Director. Central Power Distribution Co. A.P. Pvt. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation. Pvt. Ltd., 2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretanat Road, Hyderabad, rep by its Managing Director- ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

9 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004 (WAMP. NO:3912 0F 20041 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirqrmstanc,,es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connec{ion with the consumption of surplus power.by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocation of power by 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITEO WRIT APPEAL NO: 2163 OF 2OO4 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Order made in W.P.No.9161 of 2004 dt. 06.12.2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: Visaka Cernent lndustry Ltd., having its Registered Office at 827, Dhun Bldgs, Anna Salai, Chennai, rep. by its Asst. General manager Mr. l. Gopinath, ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyd. rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. ltd., singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyd, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-S0O 063, rep. by its Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO:1OF P. NO: 3913 oF 2004 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 Direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the W.A. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respond€nt No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

l0 WRIT APPEAL NO: 2164 OF 2004 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated 06-12-2004 and made in WP No.9163 of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: AND 1 M/s. Amara Raraja Batteries Ltd., Cuddapah Road, Karakambadi, Renigunta, Tirupati, rep., by its Executive Chairman, Mr.Ramachandra N. Galla. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director. Southern Power Distribution Company of A-P.Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero Honcja Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupati-S17 501 , rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 201, 2nd Floor, My sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-S0O 063, rep., by its M Director. Home anaging ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 'l OF 2004(WAMP. NO: 3914 0F 2004) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitionei relating to State-ll as per allocation of power by thc 3rd rcspondent pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CHALLA GTINARANJAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENKAT CHALLA (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI i/1. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT AFPEAL l.lO: 2i65 OF 2004 Writ Appeal under clause '1 5 of the Lefters Patent against order dl611212004 made in WP 9157/2004 on the file of the Hagh Court. Between: VST lndustries Limited, P-B.No.1804, Azamabad, Hyderabad 500 020 rep by its Constituted attomey Sanjay Khanna Corporate General Counsel. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

ll AND 1 Transmission Corporatbn of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha rep by its Chairman and tManaging Director Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. A.P.Gas Power Corporation Ltd., N1 ,2nd Floor,My Home Sarovar Plaza. Secretariat Road, Hyderabad 500.063, rep by its Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Between: Grindwell Norton Limited, Karkambadi Guddpah Road, Renigunta' rep. by its Deputy General Manager, lndustrial Relations and Legal Mr. P.C.P. Haran. 2 l.A. NO: 1 OF 20,04(WAMP. NO: 3915 OF 2004) 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 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per allocation of powers the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOO REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: sRl M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITEO WRIT APPEAL NO: 2166OF 2004 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Order made in W.P No.9222 of 2OO4 dt. 06.12.2004, on the file of the High Court. AND 1 ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER 2 3 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 19-3-13' Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta road, Tirupati-s17 501, rep- by its Chairman and Managing Director. A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1,2d Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-5ooo63, rep. by its Managing Director. ...RESPONOENTS/RESPONOENTS

t2 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO: 3916 OF 2004) 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 Direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to Stage - ll as per allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI R. VINOO REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENKAT CHALLA (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 2167 OF 2OO4 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Order made in W.P. 10144 of 2004 dt. 06.12.2004. on the file of the High Court. Between: Shiv Shakti Steel Rolling Mills, 22-6-206, Pathergatti, Hyderabad - 500 002, rep. by its lr,tanaging Partner Mahavir Prasad. ,APPELLANT/PETITION ER AND 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabaci, Rep. by its Chairman and lr4anaging Director. 2. Central Power Distributron Company of A.P. Ltd, Sirrgaterri Blravan, Red hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Pov;er Corporation Ltd, #201, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 50O 063, rep. by its Managing Drector' ...RE''.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO: 3917 OF 2004) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanees stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation of power of the 3rd respondents

l3 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDOY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt M. KARTHTK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 2168 OF 2004 ...APPELLANT Writ Appeal under clause 1S of the Letters patent against Order made in W.p. No. 9155 of 2OO4 dt. 6.12.2@4 on the lite of the High Court. Between: Hindustan Zine Ltd., P.O. Zinc Smelter, Visakhapatnam. reo. bv C. Kesava Rao, Sr..Manager (.Elect) and power of Attomery hotder of Shri (utOip k-umai Kaura, Managing Director. AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P., vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2. Eastem Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 3O-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhavan, Opp. Saraswati Park, Daba Gar<jeni, Visakhapatham, rep. Uy its Cnirimin ' and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1 . 2nd Floor. Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat, Road, Hdyerabad-S00 063, rep. Oy its 'trrtaniging Director. 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 Direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner retating to stage -ll as per accordingly power by the 3rd respondent pendirq disposal of the Writ Appeal. ...RESPONDENTS .A. NO: 1 OF 2OO4 P. NO: 3918 OF 2OO4 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI R. VTNOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENKAT CHALLA (SC FOR Ap TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITEO

t4 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd.,Vidyutshoudha, Khairarabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director' 2. The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Sing-areni bhavan, - neanitis, Hyderabad, rep- by its Chairman and Managing Director' 3. A.P. Gas Power Corporation ltd., 2O1 ,Znd floor, My Home Saravar plaza, -' S-ecretirlat, Road, Hyderabad, A-P., rep- by its Managing Director ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2. in not giving effect to the share transfei and allocation of power made by the 3'd respondent under the share certifica te dt.22-O4-O4 for the billing month of April 2004 as illegal and arlcitrary and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to revise the bill for the month ;f Aprii 2004 by excluding tfie cost of 24,734 units of power allocated by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner. WRIT PETITION NO: 8964 0F 2004 Between: lWs. R.R AND l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP. NO:11563 oF 2004) WRIT APPEAL NO: 58 OF 2005 S.R.J. Polv Films Pvt. Ltd. # plot No.215lB Phase ll, IDA' Cherlapally' Dist. rep. by its Director K. Jayasri. ..PETITIONER 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 the disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's service connection No. RRil 1095 for nonpayment oi C.C. Charges for the billing month of April, 2004 in respect of 19,787 units (gross 24734 units) of power allocated by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition- Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s' INDUS LAW FIRM counselfortheRespondentNo.l&2:SRIR.VINoDREoDY(ScFoRTSTRANSCo) counser ror the Respondent No.3: :E'rt.11TXlTBfi:ttIHffir1gN LrMrrEo Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Order made in W'P No. 1 1637 ol 2OO4 dI.20.12.2OO4 on the file of the High Court-

l5 Between: M/s. SRJ Poly Films Private Ltd, Plot No. 215/8, Phas'ell, IDA Cherlapally' Ranga Reddy Dst. rep by its Director K.Jayasri. .APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut 9oudha, Khairatabad' Hyderabad, rep by Chairman and Managing Director. 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni thavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep by Chairman and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd-' rep by its Ma #2O1 ,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road 063, rep by its Managing Director. naging Director , Hyderabad 500 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS LA. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 83 OF 200s) 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 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power stipply.in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation of power be the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS l-AW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOD REOOY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: sRl M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRITAPPE AL NO: 59 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20-12-2Cf,4 made in WP No. 12032 of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Techtran Polylenses Limited, H- No.. 400,.Sagar Co-op, Housins p.o"gty' Avenue-Vill, Road No.2, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad Rep by Managing Director, K. Venkateswara Rao .APPE LLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Transmission Corporalion of A.P., Ltd., Vidyqth, Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad rep by Chairman and Managing Director 2. Central Power Distribution C,ompany of A-P.' Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad rep by Chairman and Managing Director

l6 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza Secretariat Road, Hyderabad rep by Managing Director ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS t.A. NOrlo F 2005 MP. NO: 84 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 1 ano 2 not to disconnect the power supplying connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Appeilant: SRI PRASHANTH VRti FOR iil/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 60 0F 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Lefters Patent against the order dated 6-12-2004 in W.P.No. 9221 of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: Bharat Heavy_ Electricals Limited, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Executive Director B. Ramachandra Rao AND ...APPELLANT/PET|T|ONER 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited. Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills. Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, # 2O1 , 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad- 500 063. Rep. by its Ma-naging Director. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 85 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the carcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 1 to 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll, as per allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

T7 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 08/l112021 in WA.No. 60 of 2005 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INOUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOO REDOY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 61 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order daled 20.12.2004 in W.P.No.9945 of 2OO4 on the fr-le of the High Court. Between: M/s. L.G. Polymers lndia Private Limited-, R.R. Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam Rep. by its General Manager (lR & HR) Mr. B. Sudhakar, S/o. B' suryanarayana ...AppELLANT/pETrrloNER AND 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., 201,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, rep by its Managing Direc{or. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1.A. NO: I OF 2005(WAM P. NO: 86 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 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 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3'd respondent pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No,3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

l8 WRIT APPEAL NO: 62 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the Order dt. 2O-12-2OO4 made in W.P.No. 't 1639 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. N.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd, 1-508, Di Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director K. vyashakti Complex, Narender Reddy. Ameerpet, ...APPELLANT/PETITlONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd, # 2O1 , 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-SOO 063, Rep. by its Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 P. NO: 87 OF 2005) 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 direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to state-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3rd respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel forthe Respondent No.l & 2: SRI R. VINOO REOOY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 63 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order D1.2O.12.2OO4 in W.P.No.11745 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd, 5-9$2, K.L.K.Estate. Fatheh Maidan Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Senior Executive (legal) Y.b-Seetharaman. ...APPE LLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Directo!'. 2

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2005(WAM P. NO: 88 OF 2005) 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 1 to 4 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation of power by the 5th respondent pending dispbsal of lhe writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. TNDUS LAW F|RM Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRt R. VTNOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI VENKAT CHALLA (SC FOR Ap TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRt M. KARTHTK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRIT APPEAL NO: 64 OF 2005 t9 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad Rep.by its Chairman anil Managing Direcitor. 3. Souther Power Distribution Company Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstjirs of Hero Honda Show Room Renigunta Road, Tiiupirhi Rep. by its'Minaging Oiriior. - -- 4. Eastem Power Distribution.Company Ltd., 3-14-9, Sai Sallthi Bhavan, Qpp.Saraswathi Park Daba GanienS, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by iti Mihaging Director. 5. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., 201 , 2nd Floor Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad Rep.'by its t tjnaging' Director. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Writ Appeal under clause 'l 5 of the Letters patent against Order made in W.P.No. 1 1 638 of 2004 dt. 2O.12.2OO4 on the fite of the High Court. Between: M/s. KJR Poly Jeedimetla, R.R. Reddy. Films Private Limited, ptot No. D-162, phase-lll. IDA District. Hyderabad-S00 055, Rep. by its Director K. Naiender ANO ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Maniging Director. 2. Central Por,ver Distribution Company of A.p. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad rep. by its Chairmdn and Managing birector. 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1, 2nd Floor. Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-S00 063, Rep. by its'trlanaging Director. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

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 Direct the respondents 'l and 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the W'A' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRAST|ANTH vRN FOR M/s' INDUS LAw FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R' VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) counser for the Respondent No.3: 3ES;.ffJ"1X8i,:tt5|ffi1oN LrMrrED l.A. NO: 1 OF 2OOs(WAMP. NO: 89 OF 200s) WRIT APPEAL NO: 257 OF 2005 Between: 20 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dateti 2O-12-2OO4 in W.p.No. 7259 of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court' AND 1 M/s.TechtranPolylensesLtd.,#4O0,SagarCo-peraliveHousingSociety iit"ro'ri.)',"ijr;lr*;;nlld nvt'".auro 3+, Hep bv its Executive Director K' Krishnadev Rao. ,..APPELLANT/PETITIONER Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. Vidyutsoudha, Khairatabad' Hyderabad- Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director' The Central Power Distribution Company of A'P' Limited' Slngareni Bhavan' iiinirii,'Hvo"iauao. nep. by its Cheirman and Managing Director ' A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited, 201, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar ij[;6;;r;#"i riSio, nvo"rrbad, Andhra Pradesh' Rep bv its Manasins Director. 2 ? l.A. NO: 1 OF 2OOS(WAMP. NO: 461 0F 200s) PetitionunderSectioni5iCPCprayingthatinthecii.curnstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedStay thedisconnectionofpowersupplytothepetitioner'sServiceconnectionNo.MDK iSO-fo. nonpayment of C.C. chirges for the billing month of March, 2004 in respect or 2,46,$3 units (gross tl OO41 units) of power allocated by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Appeal'

2l Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR. SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED WRITAP PEAL NO: 268 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent Appeal to this Honble Court against the Order made in W.P.No. 11746 ot 2OO4 dt.2O-12-2OO4 passed by the Honble Mr. Justice B. Prakash Rao for the following among other - on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Super Spinning Mills Limited, P.B. No. 71 13, Elgi Towers, 737-D, Green Fields. Fulia(ulam -Road, Coimbatore - 641 045, rep by its Chief Corporate Affairs N. Mohan Ram ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 2 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. rep by its Chairman and Managing Director Central Power Distribution Compay of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills' Hyderabad. rep by its Chairman and Managing Director 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 063 Rep by its Managing Director ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 480 0F 200s) Petition under Section 1 51 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 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to state-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: SRI R. VINOO REDOY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITEO

22 WRIT APPEAL NO: 269 OF 2OO5 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dt 2O-12-2OO4 made in W.P.No. 12173of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Si -5023 AND 1 gnode lndia Ltd, Rudraram Village, Samgareddu Taluq, Medak District 29, A.P. Rep. by its Corporate Head-Legal ad Taxation. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER 2 3 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd, #2O1 ,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 063, Rep. by its Managing Director. M/s. Deccan Syntex Limited, (formedy M/s. Golconda lnvestments Limited), Bep. by its Managing Director, Flat No.203, Moghul Apartments. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 481 OF 2005) 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 pteased direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to disccnnect the pcwer supply in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to slage-ll as per the allocation of power by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ appeat Counscl for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R. VTNOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. KARTHTK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED W.A.NO: 807 OF 200s Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent against the order dated 24-1-2005 in W.P.No. 721911997 on the file of the High Court. Between:

23 AND 1. The A.P. State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Member-Secretary, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Suierinteid-ing Engiineer (Operation Circle), A.P. State Electricity Board' Medak at Sanga Reddy. 3. The AssistantDivisional Engineer (Operation), A.P. State Electricity Board, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ...RESPONOENTS/RESPONOENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO w.A. NO: 892 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6- 12-2OO4 in WP Nos. 9'166 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi - 517501 ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 1. M/s. Sri Dhanlakshmi Cotton And AlX3 r"'. Pvt. Ltd., Resd. office Ganapavaram, (Via) Chilakaluripet, Guntur District - 522619 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #201 ' 2nd Floor My, Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad -500063 ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO:2 F 200 AMP. NO: 711 0F 2005 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Betition, the High court may be pleased suspend the judgment under appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt VENKAT CHALLA, SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel for the Reipondent No'l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Against Order made in W.p. No. 9154 of 2004 dt. 6.12.2004. on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Centrai Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhawan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND i. Chanakya Cements Ltd., Plot No.652, Road t',io.3, Banjarahiils, Hyderabad- 500 034. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #201, 2nd Floor lrrly Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-SO0 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 24 W.A.NO: 893 OF 200s l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O05(WAMP. NO: 1 712 0F 200s) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stateci in the affi<javit fiieci in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleaseti t<.r suspend the Judgment under appeal pending the disposal ofthe above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTH|K PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 894 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dl.6l12l2oj4 in W. P. No.91 55 l2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporatron of A.P. Ltd. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Eastern power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 30-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhavan, Opp.Saraswati Park, Daba Garden, Visakhapatnam -530020 ...APPELLANT/RESPON DENT

25 AND 1 . M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., P.O. Zinc Smelter, Visakhapatnam _53001 5 ..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas pow.er Corpn. 1tg.,-4 2gf , 2nd floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Ro;d, ryoerabio -'soob6J '- - ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2OF 2OO5(WAMP. NO: 1713 oF 2005) 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 preased to suspend lhe judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt VENKAT CHALLA SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s TNDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.I(ARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 895 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters patent against order made in W.p. Nos. 9164 of 2004 dt. C6.12.2OO4. on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.p. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 1. M/s. VinayaklSteels Ltd., 54{3 to 85, 1st Ftoor, T.S.K. Chambers, R.No. 4 & 4A, M.G. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn- Ltd., #201 , 2d Floor My Flcme Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad -500063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONOENT

26 l.A. NO: 2OF 2OOS(WAMP. NO: 1714 0F 2005 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the judgment under appeai pending the disposal of the above W'A CounselfortheAppellants:SRIR-VINODREDDY'SCFORTSTRANSCO Corns"f forthe Reipondent No.l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M'KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL w.A.NO: 897 OF 2005 WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentfiledagainsttheorderdt.6. 12-2OO4 mad'e in W.P.No. g22O of 2004 on the file of the High Court' Between: i - Transmission Corporation of A.P- Ltd', Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad ...A''ELLANT/RE'P.NDENT AND 1.M/s.SreeRayalaseemaAlkaliesandAlliedChemicalsLtd''VasantanaEar' Kumool - 518 004. -.-RE=P.NDENT/PET.rI.NER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Lld, #2O1,2nd Floor My Home - Sir"'irr'prt.i, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 50o 063' ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 1716 oF 2005) PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit fiied i.r support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W'A' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R-VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No-2: SRI M'KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL

Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2. centrar power Distribution co. or A.P. Ltd., ;#'#flH:t# ":IJ Hvderabad' ...A''ELLANT/RE.,oNDENT AND 1. My Home Cement lndustries Ltd., 4th Floor, My Home Jupally Greenlands, AmeerpetRoad'Hyderabad-500.16' ...RES..NDENT/'ET.,.NER 2. A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1 ,2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, secretariatRoad' Hyderabad-Soo063' ...REspoNDENT/RES'.NDENT 27 W.A.NO: 898 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent Against order made in W.P No. 91 60 of 2004 dt. 6.1 2.2004. on the fi le of the High Court. l.A. NO: zOF 2OOS(WAMP. NO: 1717 OF 20051 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY' SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 899 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6-12-2004 in W.P.No. 9163 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha' Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of Ardhra Pradesh, Limited, Singareni Bhavan' Red Hills' Hvderabad ...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENT

28 AND 1. M/s. Amararaja Batteries Ltd., Cuddapah Road, Karakam Badi, Renigunta - s17 52o' ...REspoNDENT/pETrroNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, # 2O1 ,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WAMP. No: 1718 OF20q5) 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 900 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under ciause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orcier dt.6.12.2OO4 in W.P.No.9159l2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd,, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P.Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND i. Sheetai Shipping and Metai Frocessors Lid., 5-5-i03, to 105/6, ist Floor, Mehe€omplex, Ranigunj, Secunderabad -500003 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #201 ,2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza' secretariat Road' Hyderabad -uoooul..*r""oNDENT/RESpoNDENT

29 .A. NO: 2 OF 2005 WAMP. NO: 1719 OF 2005 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 suspend the Judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REODY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 901 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order d1.6.12.2004 in W.P.No.1014312004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Tranmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad' ...A''ELLANT/RES''NDENT AND 1. M/s. Sri Shiva Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.,21-2-631. Urdugalli, Pathergatti, Hvderabad - 500 002' ...RES'.NDENT/'ET.,'NER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1,2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT A.N :2OF 2OO AMP. NO: 1720 OF 20Os 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 suspend order dated 06-12-2004 in WP 1O14312004 the pending disposal of above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL

30 W.A.NO: 902 OF 2o0s Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent by the common order dt. 6-12-2004 in W.P.Nos. 9158 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Tranmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Centrai Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd-. Singareni thavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. M/s. Hindustan Sanitaryware and lndustries Ltd P.O, P.B. No. 1930, Hyderabad - 500 018. 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn- Ltd., # 2O1 ,znd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: eOF 2005(WAMP. NO: 1721 OF 200s) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavat filed in support o{ the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the judgnient under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDOY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 903 OF 2005 Writ Appeal rtnder clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orde!. dt. 06-1 2-2004 in W.P.No.9222 I 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero Honda show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi -517501. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

3l AND 1. M/s. Grindwell Norton Limited, Karakambadi, Cuddapah Road, Renigunta- 517520' ...RES'.NDENT/'ETr,.NER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas power Corpn. Ltd., # 201 , 2nd floor My Home Sarovar plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO: 2 OF 200s{wAMP. NO: 1722OF 2005) t.A. 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA, SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 904 OF 200s Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the Order dt. 6-12-2004 made in W.P.No. 9162 o'f 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vudyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. IrrVs NCL lndustries Ltd., 7th Floor , Raghava Ratna Tovvers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids' Hvderabad - 500 001 ...REspoNDENT/pETrroNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, # 2O1 , 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad- 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

32 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 1223 OF 20!s) 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 905 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dt. 6-1 2-2004 made in W.P,Nos. 9161 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. . ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. Visaka Cement lndustry Limited, Registered Office at 817, Dhun Building, Anna Salai' chennai - 600 002' .,.RES'.NDENT/'ETITI.NER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 063. ...RE SPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WAMP . NO: 1724 OF 200s) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fileci in support of the petition, the High Couri may be pleased suspend the judgment under appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL

33 W.A.NO: 910 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated 6- 12-2OO4 in WP Nos.10144 of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soirdha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co.of A.P.Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. M/s. Shiva Shakti Steel Rolling Mills, 22-6-206, Pathergatti, Hyderabad-SO0 002.. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1,znd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-SO0 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 1730 OF 20051 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayang that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment dt.6-12-2OO4 in WP No.10144/04 pending the disposal of the above WA. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 911 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent against the order dt.6.12.2OO4 in W.P.No.9157 of 2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Mdyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

35 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., # 2O1,2nd Floor' My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT !.A. NO: 2 OF 200S{WAMP. NO: 1732 OF 2005) Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the aflldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment and under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA' SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO:12 97 0F 200s Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dl.6-12-n}4 in WP.No.1 1745 of 20O4 on the file of the High Court' Between: '1. Transmission Corporation of A-P. Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills' Hvderabad' ...A',ELLANT/RES'.NDENT 3. Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P- Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero - Aonda Show Room Renigunta Road, Tirupathi- 517501 ' ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 4. Eastem Power Distribution company of A.P. Ltd., 30-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhvan, ' Opp. Saraswati Park Daba Garden, Visakhapatnam- 530020 ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1- M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd., 5-9-62, KLK Estate Fatheh Maidan Road, Hvderabad' ...RESpoNDENT/pETrrtoNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #2O1 ,2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad- tOOOU1..*aa"ONDENT/RES'ONDENT

36 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 2371 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA, SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 1298 OF 200q writ Appeal under crause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 6- 12-2OO4 in WP No. 1203212004 on the fite of the High Court. Between: 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2- Central Power Distribution Company of A.p. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 1 Techlran P.olylenses Ltd., !l,Ng l@, Sagar Coop. Housing Society Avenue Vlll, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, #2O1,2nd Floor Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - SOO 063: ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005{WAMP. NO: 2372 OF 2005) Peiition under section i 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pbtition, the High Court may be pteased suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL

37 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1299 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated 6- 12-2@4 and made in WP No.1'1639 of 20O4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Virlyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. N.R.Polymers Pvt. LTD., 1-508, Dilyashakti Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. . ...RESPONDENT/PENTPNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., # 2O1,2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 P. NO: 2373 OF 2005) 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL WRIT APPEAL NO: '1300 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated- 20- 12-2OO4 in WP.No.1 1 746 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2. centrat Power Distribution co. or e.p lt0.,"3i?!5r::iH'5::'3#tl|,l Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

38 1 AND Super Spinning Mills Ltd., P.B.No.71 13, 'Elgi' Towers, 737-D, Green Fields, FuliakulamRoad'coimbatore*41045' ...RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd, #201, 2nd Floor, Ivly Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director' ...RES'.NDENT/RE.'.NDENT 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #201, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road Hyderabad- 500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 S(WAMP. NO:2374 0F 20051 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 suspend the judgrnent unCe!'appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. counsel for the Appellants: sRl R.vlNoD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 1301 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Against Order made in WP 12173 of 2004 dt 06j22004 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. .,.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. ITW Signode lndia Ltd., Rudraram Village, Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District - 5O2 329. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

39 l.A. NO: 1OF 20Os(WAMP. NO: 2375 OF 2005 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt R.VINOD REDDY' SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRt PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL w.A.NO: 1305 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Against Order made in W'P' No. 1'1638 of 2OO4 dl. 06.12.2004. on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Transmission Coiporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.' Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills' Hvderabad' ...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENT AND 1. KJR Poly Films Private Ltd., plot No.D-162, Phase -lll IDA Jeedimetla, RR Dist' Hvd' ...REspoNDENT/pETlrtoNER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Crop. Ltd.' #2O1, 2nd floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad- 500063 ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 200S(WAMP. NO: 2379 oF 2005) 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W A- Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R-VINOD REDDY' SC FOR TSTRANSCO counset forthe Rlipondent No.1: sRt pRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL

40 W.A.NO: 1600 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent Against Order made in W.P.No. 9221 ot 2004 dt. 6.12.2OO4. on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT AND 1. lr,4/s. Bharat Hea.,ry Electr-icala Ltd., Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad-So2 032. ...RESPONDENT/PETITTONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Powel Corporation Ltd., #201 , 2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hdyerabad-500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT . NO: 2 OF 200 AMP. NO: 2891 OF 2005 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appeltants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Responclent No.1 : SRt PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL WRIT APPEAL NO: 1601 oF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dl.2O-12-2OO4 in W.P.No.9945l2OO4 on the fite of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A_P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A_p. Ltd., 3O-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhavan, Opp. Saraswati Park_ Daba Garden,-Visakhapatnam- 530020 ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND

4t 1. M/s. LG Polymers tndia (P) Ltd., R.R.Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn. Ltd., #201 , 2nd Floor My Horne Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2OF 2OOS(WAMP. NO:2892 0F 200s) 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 suspend the Judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA, SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR' SC FOR APGPCL WRIT APPEAL NO: 1607 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent filed against order dated 6-12-2004 and made in WP No.9165 of 20O4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills' Hvderabad ...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENT 3. Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., 19-3-13' Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi-s17 501. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 1 . M/S.THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENN Al, at 827 ' Dhun Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-6O0 002. 2- Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Cropn.Ltd., # 2O1,2nd Floor My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road. Hyderabad-500O63. ...RESPONDENTS

42 l.A. NO:2 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 2902 0F 2005) 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 suspend the jucigment uncier appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA, SC FOR APTRANSCO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRt PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt M.KARTH|K PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL W.A.NO: 2300 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters patent filed against order dated 20_ 12-2004 in W.P.No.11637 of 2004 on the fite of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P_ Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 1. S.RJ Polyfilms (P) Ltd , Plot No.215lB, Phase-il, tDA, Chertapaily, R.R.District, Hyderabad-500 051 . ...RESPONDENT/PET!TIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, # 2O1,2nd Floor Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500 063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO:2 OF 2005(WAMP. NO:4120 OF 2005) Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support cf the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VtNOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRt PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S TNDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE AI.OK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KI'MAR Writ Aooeal Nos.2153 .2L54.2L55. 2L56.2L57.2L5A. 2L59.2L60.2L6L ,2L62, 2L63.2L64. 2165,2L66. 2r67 2168 of 2OO4 and Writ Petition No.8964 of 2OO4 and Writ Aooeal Nos.S8.59.6().6L.62 63.64.257. 264.269.807, 492, 493, 494, a95, a97. 898, a99.900. 901.902.9()3 , 904, 905, gLO,9LL.9t2, t297. L29a. L299. L3o0 1301, 1305. 1600. 16O1, 1602 and 23OO of 2OO5; COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble tlle Chief Justb Alok Arudle) These intra-court appeals liled by the participating industries and the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (hereinafter referred to as A.P.TranscoJ emanate from common orders dated 06.12.2004 and 2O.12.2OO4 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petitions preferred by the participating industries have been partly allowed. 2. On admitted facts, common issues of law arise for consideration in this batch of appeals arrd in the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.8964 of 2OO4 and therefore, we have hea-rd the same analogously and this batch of cases is this common ,,. dccided by j;"tdgment. For the facility of

) to reference, facts from W.A.No.58 of 2O05 are being referred (if Facts: 3. The appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of co-extruded polyethylene hlm. The industrial activitl, cf the appellant rcquires continuous and uninterrupted supply of electrical poiver. The appellant industry suffered due to severe power cuts imposed by tJ:e erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, which in turn crippled the functioning of the appclleLnt industry. 4. In the year 1988, A.P.Transco, T.S.Transo and six other ccmpanies of pu!:lic and pr:,,'atc sectcr entered into a Memorandum ol [Jndcrstandrng dated l7_ 1O.l98a (hereinafter referred to as 'MoU-l') for formation of a new company namely, Andhra Praclcsh Gas Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'APGPCL'). The said company was formed u,iLh an object to set up a natural gas based power gencration station of lOO MW capacity in the erstwhile State of Andtrra Pradesh.

4 8. Clause 2.1 of the MoU-ll provides for sharing of the enerry generated from 172 MW generating station by the participating industries and A.P.Transco, in proportion to the number of shares held by them. Clause 2.6 of MoU-lI provides that when a participating industry, for any reason, is unable to utilise its full share of energr from APGPCL, participating industry shall give advance notice of fifteen days before billing morlth ro APGPCL and there upon APGPCL shall reallocate the surrendered energz to the participating industry on prorara basis, among t[".ose of the rest of the participants s,ho requirc additional power. When such advance notice is not received by APGPCL within the stipulated period of ftfrcen davs, the unutilised power sha-ll be fully allocated to A. [)_'l ransco. 9. The Andhra Pradesh Elcctricity Reforms Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reforms Act') rvas brought into force with effect from O1.02.1999. Secrion l4(4) ol the Reforms Act requires a licence lor transmission and supply of electricit5r. A provisional licence nas granted to ApGpCL for a period of twelve months from O 1 .O2.I999. The Andhra

) Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as APERC] by an order dated O7.O7.2OOO tnter alia held that licence is required by APGPCL for generation of power and conditional exemption from licence under Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Gas Poser Corporation Limited v. Andhra Pradesh State Regulatory Commissionr dealt with the issue whether APGPCL is required to obtain a licence under the law for utilisation/ sale or supply o[ power generated by it to the participating industries, their sister concerns or the industries to whom shares of APGPCL have been transferred by the participating industries. The said issue was answered in paragraph 48 which is extracted below: ' (2004) ro scc 5 | I

6 48. As a result of the discussions held above and the frndings as recorded by us, the position that emerges is that participating industries and the industries to whom participating industries have transferred their shares, consumption of electricity by ttrem within the limits of the value of their share capital in A-P, GPCL lvould only arnount to captive consumption and for such utilisation or consumption of self-generated electricity no hccnce u,ould be requircd under a-ny provision of law. So f:rr as thc sister conccrn or concerns wlrich have been defirretl as those under the sarnc group as parlrcipating industries are concerned, it would requirc to have a Iicence if the electricit5r is made availablc or provided to them for consumption as, in our vicu,. it shall tall within the ambit of distribution, salc or suppty of the electricity and not captive consumption of pow,er. It rvould be per-rnissible without licencc or.rll iir casc of exemption, if granted in that hehalf l.x.rhe c6qp411n1 authority. Hereinafter we shall discuss lhat aspect of thc ruattcr. 1 1- 1. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court has held that no licence is required under the Reforms Act for utilisation o[ enerry generated by APGPCL which is utitised by participating industnes. Howevei-, it was hcLj tirat iicence would be necessary for supply of energy, to the sister concerns which are distinct and separate enti[ics.

7 12. On coming into force of Electricity Act, 2OO3 with effect from 06.10.2OO4, provisions relating to licence under the Reforms Act ceased to have aly effect. 13. The erstwhile A.P.Transco issued revised bifls demanding tariff in respect of surplus enerry consumed by the participating industries. Thc aforesaid demand notices were ch€llenged by the participating industries in batch of writ petitions. (iil Orders of learned Single Judge: ..., The learned Single Judge by common order dated 06.12.2OO4 inter alia held as follou,s:- (i) A.P.Transco has exclusive discretion to make use of surplus energ/ and allot the unutilised power to the participating industrie s. (ii) The participating ind ustries have a preferential right for allocation of surplus power under MoU-I. (iii) The price for such surplus ener5/ has to be settled between A.P.Transco and APGpCL based on fuel cost plus O&M charges plus dcpreciation but not exceeding the rate of enerry as per F{T cateqory I of A.p.Transco.

8 (iv) The action of A.P.Transco in lerying charges or tarifl in respect of surplus enerry allotted to the pa rticipal ing industries is va-Iid. (v) In the absence of any price f-rxation agreement contcmplated in the MoU-I and in view of Clause 17(a) therein, it cannot be said tJlat the price can be levied at the cl-roice of l.he A.P.Transco, and (vi) It is not the case of APGPCL that the rates havc bcen hxed in consultation with the A.P.Transco i4 . The learned Single Judge, therefore, partl-v aliowed the rvrit petitions and held that the claim ol A.P.Transco ir-r respect of surplus charge was valid, and however the samc has to bt-. necessarily at the rates or prices to b<: dctermined by A.P.Transco and APGPCL after notice ro the parties. It was directed that till such decision is arrived at, tl-rc A.P.Transco shall not give effect to the demands and ar-ry demand, if made, shalt be subject to determirration of price betr\/een the A.P.Transco and APGPCI-. in thc aloresaid background, these intra-court appeals have becn

9 filed by participating industries as w'ell as by the A.P.Transco. 15. Heard Mr. K.Gopal Choudary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant/participating industry in Writ Appeal No.2161 of 2OO4; Mr. Prashanth VRN, learned counsel representing M/s.Indus Law Firm, learned counsel for participating industries; Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel for T.S.Transco, Mr. Venkat Challa, learned standing counsel for A. P.Transco and Mr. M.Karthik Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited. (iiif Submissions on behalf of participating industries: 16. Mr. Gopal Choudary, learned Senior Counsel for appellant/participating industry in Writ Appea-l No.216I of 2OO4 and Mr. Prashanth VRN, representing M/s-lndus [-aw Firm, learned counsel for the participating industries, submit that the learned Single Judge erred in considering clause L7 (al of MoU-I only which is not applicable to the facts of the case, as surplus pou,er from generating station a"u et2

10 under MoU-l is not an issue. While inviting the attention of this Cou:-t to clause 2.6 of MoU-II, it is contended that the participating industries have to be reallocatcd the surrendered ener$/ on prorata basis and thereafter if any surplus pou,er is left, then only the same has to bc tralslerred to the A.P.Transco. It is urged that thc issue rn,ith regard to the requirement of licence has been settled b_v the .Judgmcnt of the Ilon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited (supra). It is argued th:Lt thc po'.r,er has to be allocated only in accordance with MoUs anrl no notice was given to the participating inclustrrcs before rssuing the revised demands. 16.1. tt is contended that the properry in goocls i-e. , 'ele ctricity' belongs to ApGpCL arrd the A.p.Transco, in respect o[ surplus enerry is in temporar5r possession of the electricit_y as barliff, till it is transferred to the participating industrr,. [t is, therefore, contended that a bailiff cannot sct up a titlc in rcspect of the goods, namely .electricitv, aIld there[ore. has no authority in law to issue the reviscd bills as if it is the owner of the goods. It is also clarified that the

lt pa-rticipating industries have already paid the bilts in respect of surplus enerry to APGPCL and the participating industries are only questioning the action of A. P.Transco in revising the bills, in respect of surplus enerry 16.2.l-earted counsel for some of the participating industries has invited our attention to common order dated 08.10.2010 by tl.e learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, namely W.P.No.11317 of 2006 and other connected writ petitions and has submitted that at the instance of some of participating industries a batch of writ petitions were filed questioning the action o[ A.P.Trarrsco in issuing the revised bill for the surplus ener$/. It is furthcr submitted that learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 08. 1O.2O 10 has quashed the demand notices issued by the A.P.Transco with the liberty to work out its remedies, if any available to it under the law. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid order passed by the learncd Single Judge in respect of similarly situated industries in quashing the revised bills has been acceptcd by

t7 A. P.Tran sco and therefore, appeals hled by A.p.Transco shouid be dismissed. I6.3. trzirned counsel for some of the participating industries has adopted the submissions made by learned Senior Counscl flor the participating industries referred to in previotrs paragraph. (ivl Submissions A. P.Transco) on behalf of T.S. Transco (formerly 17 . Mr- R.Vinod Redd_v, learned counsel for T.S. Transco (formerly A.P.Transco) submits that in pursuance of Judgmcnt of I {on'ble Supreme Court in Andhra pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited (supra), A.p.Transco by commurricatron datcd 28.O4.2OO4 informed ApGpCL that it does not have the licence to allot surplus power to other participating industnes and A.p.Transco alone is entitled to allot surplus power and bill the sarne as per tariff order. Despite the aforcsard communication, ApGpCL a_[otted surplus poucr to partrcipating industries for the month of April/Ma_v, 2OO4 ar-rd thercfore, the revised bills as pcr

l3 tarifl order were issued to the participating industries in respect of the surplus power allotted to them 17 .1. It is contended that A.P.Transco is competent to issue the revised bills and has rightly issued the same as per the tariff order hxed by the APERC. It is, therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge ought not to have issued a direction to fix the rates or prices to be determined betr,r,een the A. P.Transco and APGPCL after notice to the participating industries and erred in directing that till said decision is arrived at, the revised bills made by A.p.Transco shall not be given effect. It is contended that aforesaid direction be set aside. (vl Submissioas A. P.Transcof on behalf of A.P.Transco (present 18. Mr. Venkat Challa, learned counsel for A.p.Transco submits that the participating industries should avarl the alternative remedy available to them under claus c T of MoU-ll and resort to settlement of dispute by Arbitration.

I4 (vi) Submissions on behalf of APGPCL i9. Mr. I!{.Karthik Pavar l(umar, learned counsel for APGPCL submitted that advance notice was given by the participating industries to APGPCL and supported the ca.se of participating indust ries (viil -4nalysis: 20. We have considcred the rival submissions made on both sides a-nd perused the rccord. The grievance of the participating industnes rn these appeals is with regard to recovery of excess amount by way of revised bill issued by the A.P.Transco i-e., the dilference between the charges paici by the participarrr-rg inciusrrics Lo APGPCL on account of the consumption ol surplus cncrry and the tariff sought to be recovered bv the A. P-Tra.nsco under the tariff order. 21 . Twin issucs arisc for consideration in this batch of writ appeals and u.rit petitror-l: (i) Whether A. P-'lransco has authority in law to issue revised demand s-?

t5 (ii) If yes, whether it has authoriQr to recover the amount due on account of supply of surplus enerry without affording an opportunity of hearing about the quantum of amount to participating industries? 22. Belore proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant clauses of MoUs: 22 . 1 . Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 17 of MoU-I read as under: MoU-l dated 17.1O.1988 2. The Participating Industries shall invest in the equity share capital of APGPCL in proportion to their allotted sharc of power. A.P. Transco/T.S. Transco shatl hold not less than 15% of the paid-up share capital o[ APGPCL at any point of time. 3. Thc etectricity viz., both power ald enerry to be generatcd by APGPCL shall be shared between the Participating tndustries and A-P. Transco/T.S. Transco in proportion to their paid-up share capital. Thc encrry sharing shall be Pro-rata of actual enerry generated and sha-[ be regulated on mont]rly basis. Thc power sharing will be proportional to the actual capacity on bars during the month. 4. Thc Participating Industries may transfer their share of cnerry and power from APGPCL to t]reir sister concern subjcct to,ltre said sister concern being tocatcd r.r.ithin thc State of Andhra Pradesh and is a

l6 HT consumer o[ A.P. Trarsco / T,S- Transco. provided also such tralsfer shall bc on month to month basis vi.z. frorn the beginning oi the month to the end of the month a.l1d not a part of the montir, For such trarrsfer, application shall bc made to ApGpCL ald prior approval of APGPCL shall be obtained bcfore actual availmcnt. Such transfer shall also be informed to A.P. Transco/T.S- Tralsco in advance. EXPLANATION: A: Sister concenl means a concerrl Lrnder the salrle group. EXPLANATION: B: Iior purposcs o[ this clause mont]r me;rns Billing Montlr in ar:cordance with the practice followed for A.P. Transco/'l S. l'ransco supply. !7. (a) It is agrced that r[ the power generation by APGPCL could not be u rrlized by the participating lndustries cithcr in full or in part, then A-p. Tralsco/T.S- Transco siraii ha,,,e [irst ciaim to uLilize such powcr. Tl-,c pr icc ioi sur [r slirplus cnerB/ sha_ll be mutually sculcd bcrrr.ecn A.p. Transco/T-S. Tralsco ald APGPCL bascd orr fuel cost plus O&M charges plus dcprcciatron l)ut not exceeding rate for enerry as per HT catcgor] t ot A-p. Transco/T.S. Tran sco. (b) It is agreed that as rr rule ApGpCL shall not setfle power outside thc State o[ Andhra pradesh alld State of Telangana. 22.2. Clauses l.lZ, 2.6 an cl 2.8 ol MoU_ll, dated 19.O4.1997 read as urldcr

tl 1.17 Participants, Participant Industry/ Participating Industries means and includes the concerns as dehned in the preamble to this MOU. 2.6 Non Utilisation of Enerry by any of the Participating Industries to full exteat: When a Participant Industr5i, for any reason is unable to uLilize its full share of enerry from APGPCL, it shall give an advance notice of at least 15 days before tJ:e Billing Month to APGPCL. APGPCL shall then reallocate thc surrendered enerry of the Pa-rticipant Industry on pro-rata basis, among those of the rest of the Participants who require additional power. However, when the advance notice is not received by APGPCL \.ithin the stipulated period rnentioned above, the unutilizcd power shall be fully allocated to A.P. Transc<.r/T.S Transco. 2.8. Whcre thc Participant Industry does not give advancc notrce for unutilized power to APGPCL mentioned in [6] above, such unutilized power shall be transferred to A P. Transco/T.S. Transco, as follows:- (A) During R&C Period The unutilized power, transfcrred to A P. Transco / T.S. Transco shall be billed by APGPCL at full cost [i.e. frxed + variable cost] and in such a case for the unutilized power, tlle Participant Inclustry nced not pay any charges. (B) Durine Non-R&C Penod: The unutilized power, transfcrrcd to A.P Trans-cgJ T.S. Transco by APGPCL sha-tl be tritlcd at variable cost and for this power the

l8 Iixed chatges will be met by the participart tndustry itselJ 22-3. CLau-se 17(a) of MoU-[ provides r-hat ir-r respect of surplus eners/ which is not utilised by the participating industries either in full or in part, the A. p.Traresco shall have the first claim to utilise such po\r.cr. The price for such su.rplus enerry shall be mutually settled between A.P.Transco/TS Transco and APCpCL based on fuel cost and O&M charges plus depreciation but not exceeding rate for energr as per HT category-l of A.p.Transco/TS Transco. 22.4. Clause 2.6 of MoU-ll provides that when a participating industry is unable to utilise irs fu[ share of ener$r from APGPCL, it shall give advance notice of at least 15 days before bill month to ApGpCL. ApGpCL was thcn rea-llocate tlee surrendered energ, oi participating industry on prorata basis to the rest of the participating industries who require additional power. Hou,ever, in case an advance notice is not received by ApGpCL, the unutiliseci power shall be fully allocated to A.P.Trasnco/TS Trarsco.

l9 22.5. However, before proceeding further, it is pertinent to ' take note of clause I I of MoU-l and clauses 2.1, 2.2, 2.2 and. 3.2 of the MoU-ll, which are extracted as under: MoU-l I l. The Participating Industries will be common consumers of A-P. Transco/T.S. Transco and APGPCL. It is agreed that APGrcL shall be free to formulate its tariff taking into account its financial commitments towards O&M expenses, fuel costs including minimum guarantees, if any, hnancing commitments and other items in accordance u'ith various statutory provisions. Out of tJleenerry used by rhc Participating Industries, the share of power allocated by APGPCL shall be billed as per APGPCL tarifs. The balance euergy used by the Participating Industries shall be billed as per A.p. Traasco/T.S. TraEsco tariffs. [n case the actual utiliz-ation of any Parricil)aring Indusrry falls short of its share from APGPCL, thc bilting will be for actual utilization only subjcct to minimum charges payable to A.P. Transco/T.S. Transco under its tariffs and terms and conditions of supply. The actual a.rrangement bctwecn A- P. Transco/T.S. Transco, APGPCL the Participating Industries shall be worked out in detail. MoU-II 2.1 Basis for sharing of Demand and Energy; The Partrcipants agree that both demand and enerry to be gcnerated out of thc proposed Power Generating Station of the Company shall be shared by .:.

20 them in proportion to thc number of shares held in the explanation project from time to time_ The sharing of Actua_l Detivered Capacity [i.e Dernalrd and EnerS/l out of the proposed power Generating station shall be pro-rata with referencc to the number of shares held in the cxpansion proJect i.e. the capacity sharing shall be proportional to the actual delivered capacity arrd net energr delivered at the interconnec'Lion point dul.ing thr: Biiting Month, The demand and enerry delivered shall bc regulated on monthly basis by the party of the first part. 2.2. Tratster of Energy: APGPCL agree that the Participatrng Industrics ma]. transfer their share of enerry to their sister concernls) subject to the condition that thc said sister concern(s) is/are located within the State of Andhra pradesh arnd is/are HT consumers of A.P- Tralsco/T.S. Tralsco. The Participating Industries agree th;rt anv srrch transfer by them to their sister conccrn shall bc madc on month to month basis - i.c, from rhe hcginning of the Billing Month to the end of the l3illing Monrh and not a part of the Billing Monrh. The Participating Industries also agree thar lor such transfer, an application shall be madc to ApGpCL and prior approval of APGPCL shall be obtaincd before actual availment b]; the trarrsfcree concern{s) and bcfore the comnencement of the next Bi[ing Month. The Participating Industrics agrec that such transfcr sha-1l also be informed to tl.re A. p. Transco / T. S. Trans<:o simultaneously.

2t 2.7 Wbere the Participant Industry gives advance notice mentioned in [6] above: (A) During Restriction & Control [R&Cl period: APGPCL shall collect full cost from the reallocated Participant [including A.P. Transco/T.S. Transco] during the R&C period of A.P. Transco / T.S- Transco. (B) During Non-R&C Penod: The power surrendercd to APGPCL shall be first offered to the rest of the Participating lndustries, who require additional power. Such industries will pay full cost [i.e. fD<ed + variable costl for the additionally allotted energr- Any power left over after this allocation will be transfcrred to A. P- Transco / T.S. Tralsco. APGrcL shall, however, collcct only the variable cost from A.P. Transco / T.S. Transco on such power allocated to it during thc Non-R&C period. The Participant Industry not utilizing its share of enerry during Non-R&C period is liable to pay hxed charges on that Part of its strare o[ cncrry, so transferred to A.P. Transco/T.S. Transco. 3.2 Tarilf Fixation: It is agreed to between hereto that power tarilf to be charged on the A.P. Transco/T.S. Transco and Farticipating Industries shall be governed by the two part taritf formula which contains the following elements, subject to modifrcations, if any.

The hxed charges shall be fully recowered at the plant working at 6,000 hours in a Frnancial year. Therc shtr-ll be no incentive for the ptant working beyond 6,0O0 hours in a frna-ncial vear. However, in its place, ttte fixed charges per kitowatt hour shall remain constant even beyond 6,000 hours. I. Fixed Charges: It is agreed to by all the parties to this Memorardurn of ijnderstanding that the fixed charges payable by the participants as part of the Tarifl in each Bilting Month shall be arnved at, based on the folloning: Sl.No Particulars Depreciation Expect on land @ Intcrest on [ran: A, Temr Loan including Suppliers' Credit 22 both fixed charges and The tarilT shall cover variable costs. B. Working capital [-oan S k mar Re B I, as II, n a e n o r t rla c S n d c le o tn de f atl thc hx s a [lnan s ns S s e d t(o cial c t n On se o h u ! fi lJ a ha pe ad o r c o ed p u r b s n p ea ? n s lo e h e ba rl d s C n x n a h a I I I On the ou t sl a rr(lin g balances of Loan- II. Total intercst pal ablc for the J,ear slrall bc computed in advancc at the beginning of the 1'ear for the existing loans. III- In case of nerv loans availed during an), financial year, chargc strall be made from the datc ()f availment of srrclr- Ir.)an -< [cr thc balancc period in that I L r lV. Thc rvorking capital is arrived based on orr(: month of fuel cost. onc month of O&M cost. cosl of spares at l7o of cal)rt l Rate of Charges | 7 .84"/. At the rates specified by hnancial institutions/ Supp liers' Credit/banks etc. on actual. At the rates specified by hnancial institutions/ bank s etc., on actual. cost less one fi[tl] of thc 2 i I i l i I I l 1 I I

cost o[ initial spares capitalized and two month of receivable- C. Other frnancial charges such as B.G. Commission [,C Charges Commitment charRes etc. At actua[ charges by F.[s/Banks etc- V. Based on the previous yea. expenditure any variation on actual the allorvance charge such as shall be made at the end of the year i-e., March Billing Month. 3 Return Equity on @ 12"/" [- On the amount determined as equity by the linancial institutions. I[- Variatron in this return based on actual Equity, on completcd cost basis. [. No variation in this return is cnvisagcd beyond this period, subject to Clause- 1 of article-4 of this MoU 4 O&MCost @ 2/" of the project, excluding major replacements. 5 Insurance @O-59/" of project cost excluding land cost, 6 Exchange variation rate At actuals 7 Income Tax 23 At actuals Project cost means project as appraised / at actual at the cnd of commissionfng period la,hichever is higher and shall include additions/dcletions made during the year for which chargcs / allou.ance is to be givcn in the March billing Morrth of each year- Thc expcnditure on O&M in each subsequent year shall trc resiscd on the basis of u,e ighted price index To be recouped with six months frorn thc date of incurrencc. Based on Advance Tax paid. Any !ariations/to be allotr ccl/charges based on thc provision crcated in the Audrted Balance sheet. To be recoupcd within 3 months of lts incurrcncc fullr,. llou'ever- tax incidcncc for an

24 II Variable Cost: Fuel cost Atrxrliary C()n su m ptron particular ycar, on berng determined at the time of assessment by revenue authorities, shall be given credit/ recovered within 3 months of assessment Any charge in pride during Billing Month shatl be consolidated in the subsequent billinB months. For this purpose, FIFO method of pricing the fuel consumption shatl be made, considering storage capaciB, and actual fuei avai.lable at thc tirne of notification for cha '2 I I I r I i I e For this purposc, PLF ar4 68.5% is considered as normal level and heat rate of the plant as given by the equipment manufacturer which shall not be less than 37" ceilin Any general expenses incurred by the Compaly drtring a finarcial year which cannot be directly idr:ntifiable shalt be proportionately cha-rged betlvcen I O0 MW and L72 MW power plants respectively, lrased upon fhe number of units generated and shall bc charged in the tariff accordingly. It rs agreed to between all the parties that till all the costs that are incurred zrre recouped fully from the parti<:ipating lndustries, no further benefrts in the fonn of dividend or bonus shall be made unless nccessar_v provisions are made on r,lte reserves on the above items, 22.6. Tlius, from close scrutiny of clause 1l of MoU_[, it is evident tl-ral the participating industries har;e agreed that At actuals @37o gross enerry generated (to be charged on the above costs) I

25 the balalce enerry utilised by participating industries shall be bitled as per A.P.Transco tariff. Similarly, from a conjoint reading of clauses 2.1, 2.2, 2.6 and 3.2 of MoU-ll, it is axiomatic that clauses 2.1 discloses basis of sharing of demand and enerry, whereas clause 2.2 deals with transfer of enerry. Similarly, clause 2.6 deals with an eventuality where there is non-utilisation of ener$/ by any of the participating industr5r to full extent. Clause 3.2 deals with tariff fixation. The participating industries have agreed that power tariff to be charged on the A.P.Transco and the participating industries, shall be governed by the two-part tariff formula which contains the following elements namely, fixed charges aJrd variable costs subject to modifications, if any. 22.7.Th.e participating industries as well as A.P.Transco/ TS Transco are bound by the stipulations contained in the MoUs. Neither the participating industries nor A.P.Transco have cha-llenged the aforesaid stipulations in the Mo Us The APGPCL has also not challenged the terms and conditions of the MoUs and therefore, the participating .,.

26 industries are bound by the conditions contained in MoU-I and MoU-l[- 22.8. Thcrcfore, u,c hold that A.P.Transco under clause I I of thc MoU-l arrd 3.2 of MoU-lI has the authority to issue the revisr:d bills in respect of surplus enerry supplied by the APGPCL to participating industries. Therefore, we ans\rlcr ttrc first issuc in afl-rrmative and hold that under MoU-l and MoU-ll, A.P-Transco has authority to issue revised cit:mands in respect of surplus ener$/ supplied to participating i ndustries. 23. Norr,. u c mav advert to the second issue, namely, whelher il. has authority to recouer tLrc amount due on account oJ. supply of surplus energA u_titlaut affording an oppofiunitq of hearing to participating industries, about the demand? 23. I. In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works2, while dealing rt,ith principles ol audi alteram partem, it was held Lhat aucLi alteram poftem is the hrst principle of the (lS6i)llrIR.lI.1

27 civilized jurisprudence and the second long arm of natural justice is to " hear the otler sidd or 'no man sLnuld . be condemned unhearf or the " rul-e of fair Lreaingl'. This doctrine is a code of procedure and hence covers every stage through which administrative decision making passes. The laws made by God ald man gives the opportunity to the party to defend himself, thus, a person who is facing charges must be given an opportunity to be heard before any decision is passed against him. 23.2. lo Administratiue Laut bg Wade & Forsgtly Bth Edition, pages 436-437, principles of natural justice have been dcscribed as under: 'ln ils broadest sense natural justice may m,ean simply the 'natural sen-se of u.thot is right and urong' and euen in its technicol sense it is nou.t ofien equated uith fainess- It has been said *at'thot romantic tuord "notural" adds rtothing 'except perhops a hint of nostalgia'; and tlnt justice is fot fum being o "natural" concept - the closer on.e goes to a state of nature, the less justice does one iind.' But in adminktratiue law nntural justie is a uell dejned ancept u.thich amprises tuo fundamental ntles of fair procedure: that a man maA not be a judge in his own cnuse; antd tltdt a na.n's d.eJence rnust akoags tu fairly learh. Irc colz;rts o.f lano and in

stetutory tribunals it can be taken for grantcd. thqt these rules nust be obsented.. But so u,aitErsal ane theg, so 'nataral', that theg d.re not conft.ned. tc juiicto'l pouer.' 23.3. In A.K.Kraipak v. Union of Inrtia3, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 2O, has held as under: 20. The aim o[ rhe rules of natural justice is to secure ,iusticc or to Dut it negatively to prevent miscarriagc ofjusticc. These rules can operate only in areas nol covered by an-y law vahdly made. In other words thel, do not supplai.rt the law of the land but supglement it. Thc concept of natural justice has undcrgone a grcat deal of change in recent years. In the past it \r,as rl)ought that it included just two rules namcly. (1) no one shall bc a judge in his own case (Nenrc cleltet r:-s.sr: prdex propria causal and (2) no deci:;ron slrall lrt. ylivcn rrgainst a pa_rty without allording lrim a reirsonable hearing (audi alteram po11.,,r1l V('ry s.)on thercafter a third rule uras envisagcd and rhat rs that quasi-judicial enquiries must b(i helC rn good tarth, wrthout bias and not arbitrarily or unrcasonably But in the course of years mary. morc subsrdiary rules came to be added to the rules o[ natural Juslicc Till very recently it was the opinion o[ thc courts that unless the aut]rorit5r conccrncci was rcqlurcd b], thc law under which it functionr:d to act judiciall-y there was no room for the application oI rhc rulcs of natura_[ justice. The validity ol that limilation is norv qucstioned- If the purpose of r1teeo;:s<c:c:

29 the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justicc one fails to see why those rules should be made inappticable to administrative enquiries' Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the airn of both quasr-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may havc more far reaching effect than a dccision in a quasi-judicial enquiry' As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v ' tlniuersitg of Kerala lCivtl Appeal No. 990/68, decided on15-7- 19681 the rlles o[ natura-I justice a-re not embodied rules. What parLicular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on thc facts and circumstances of that case' the framework of the law under which t]re enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons aPpointed for that purpose' Whenever a compla.int is made bcfore a court t]rat some principle o[ natural justice had been contravened t]re court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for ajust decision on the facts of tl.at case' 23.4.The breach of pJndiples of natural justice is of two primalv kinds, namely absence of notice of the proceedings or failurc to afford the defendant an opportunity of

.r0 substantially presenting his case. (See Jet Hotdings Inc., v. PateI+ casd 23.5. Whilc dealing with the principles of natural justice, tJle Honble Supremc Court in State Bank of patiala v. S.K.Sharmas and Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh5 has held that ..-some reaL prejudice must haue been causcd to lh.e contplrtinartl on accourtl oJ. uiolation of pinciples oJ natural -/r/strce. Mere non_comptiance uith principles of no.tural justice Coes not ipso facto result in order being rendert:d nuilitg. In other Luord.s, th_e amplainant has to shout thc prejudice.,, 23.6.In Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, .I&K Bank LioitedT, it u,as hcld that " tlle Ccturt applies tLe pinciptes of nafural .justice hauinq regard to the fact situation of the '(tg8g) z elt un oas t ( tggo): scc toa u ( tggo) s scc roo '(2005) 5 SCC rj?

3l 23.7. A three-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authoritya has held that'natural justice relieues legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical preuarication. It supplies the omissions of a fonnulated lau. As Lord Buckmaster said, no fonn or procedure sLauld euer be permitted to exclude the presentation of a littgants' defene". 23.8. In Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of Indiae, after taking note of previous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that "ttte partg affected by the decision must establish thnt the decision utas reacled bg a process that u.tas unfair without complging uith pinciples of natural justice" . 23.9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principles, we advert to the facts of the case. The case of the participating industries as pleaded in the writ petitions is that the levy in respect of surplus ener$/ made by A.P.Transco is far higher than the tariff payable to APGPCL. However, '1zot:yrrst't't 'q 2011 SC]C o t.rn. sC ]66

l2 admittediy no notice has been issued to participating industries before revising the demald for surplus enerry. The action of A.P.Transco in seeking to recover the arnounts from the pa-rticipating industries on account of surplus ener$/ is violative of principles of audi alteram partem. The amounts as indicated in the revised bitls are sought to be recovered frorn the participating industries without even issuing notices to them and $,ithout affording them ar opportunity of hcar-rng. The participating industries have suffered prejudice on account of non- compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we hold that A. P.Tra.nsco ha,s no ar-rthority to recover the amount due on accounl oI supply of surplus enerry without affording arr opportunity of hearing to participating industries aboLrt the quantum of amount sought to be recovered from thcm. 'lherefore, we answer the second issue in the negative and hold that A.P.Transco has no authority to recover the amorrnt due on account of supply of surplus ener$/ q,ithoui affording an opportunity of hearing about the quantlrm of the amount to the pa,rticipating industric s, I

34 power plants. In arry case, once the electricity generated from trvo power plants is put in the grid, it is not possible to ascertain whether the excess ener$/ is from pou,er plant covered under MoU-l or MoU-ll. Therefore, the contention that learned Single Judge erred in applying clausc I7(a) of MoU-l and ought to have applied clause 2.6 of MoU-ll cannot be accepted. 26. Tlrre issue whether the tlectricity, falts under goods is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supre mc Court in CST v. M.P.Electricity Board, Jabalpurlo, after taking into account the dehnition of goods' in Arricle 366 (l2l of the Constitution hetd that electricity is,goods'a-r-rd is therefore covered under Entry 54 of List II o[ Schcdute VIt to the Constitution for the purposes of sales tax. Thc aforesaid view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court r,t,as reiterated by a Constitution Bench of the Hontrlc Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal power Corporation Limitedrr. The issue u,hethcr or not elcctricity is 'goods' hzrs been settled by the aforcsaid dccisions of the '' ( le69) I scc 2oo " (2002) 5 scc 203

i5 Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it is not necessa4l for us in these cases to examine the contention urged on behalf of participating industries whether title in goods i.e., electricity passes on to A.P.Transco and whether as owrrer it can issue revised demands, as we have already held that A.P.Transco under MoU-[ and MoU-[[ has authority to issue the revised bills for surplus eners/ supplied to the participating industries. 27 . So far reliance placed by participating industries on the order dated OA.|2.2OIO in W.P.No. I 1317 of 20O6 and other connected matters is concerned, suffice it to say that learned Single Judge did not takc note of relevant clauses of MoU-I, namely clause I I o[ MoU-l ald clause 3.2 of MoU-II and has held that A.P.Transco has no authorit5r to issue revised bills as it is not the owner of goods. However, the learned Single Judge further held that action of A.P.Transco in seeking to recover revised bill is violative of natural justice. For the reasons already assigned by us, in preceding paragraphs, u,e do not concur with the view expressed in order dated 08. 12 .2O IO in W. P. No. I 1 3 I 7 of

36 2O 16 and other connected matters, which does not even othentise bind us. Therefore, the OB .l2.2OiO is of no assistarce to aforesaid order dated participating industries in lhe facts of the case. 28. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of thc participating industries that the revised bills havc been issued b5. the A.P.Tralsco in violation of conditions ol. MoUs- Therefore, the A.p.Transco is r,r,ell u,ithin its right to issue the revised bills under the MoU I and MoU_li. f{owever, t.he learned Single Judge failed to take note o[ rhe relevant ciauses of MoUs referred to supra and erred in holding that there is no pice fixation agrccmciii contemplated in MoUs. The parties have agreed to firation of 1:rice under clause l l of MoU-l ancl under clause 3.2 ol MoU-ll- The learned Single Judge further erred in dirccting that the rates or prices have to be determined betu,een A.P.Transco and APGpCL after notice to the participatir-rg industries. The learned Single Judge furthcr crred in restraining the A.p.Transco from recovery oI amount

37 mentioned in the revised bills, subject to ultimate determination of price between A.P.Transco and ApGpCL. 29. The A.P.Transco is entitled to charge the tariff under clause 11 of MoU-I and clause 3.2 of MoU-II. The notices have already been issued to the participating industries. The participating industries shall be entitled to file objections, if any, to the demand notices issued by A.P.Tralsco to point out that the same is not in conformity with clause 11 of MoU-I or clause 3.2 o[ Mou-ll. Thereafter, A.P.Transco shall consider the objections, if any, preferred by the participating industries. Needless to state that after decision on the objections preferred b_r, the participating industries to the demald notices impugned in these appeals and tle writ petition, A.P.Transco shall be entitled to recover the amount from the participating industries in accord€rnce with law. 3O. To the aforesaid extent, the common orders dated 06.12.2004 passed in W.P.Nos.9 154 of 2OO4 and connected matters and order dated 20. 12.2OO4 passed in (. L I

To W.P.Nos.9945 of 2OO4 and connected matters passed by the learned Singie Judge are modified. 31. The writ appeals and the writ petition are accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOI.I CFFICER One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE (For His Lordships' Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR (For His Lordships' Kind Perusal) 1. 11 L.R. Copies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs. New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings. Hyderabad. 4- The A.P. State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Member-Secretary, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 5. The Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), A.P. State Electricity Board, I\Iedak at Sanga Reddy. 6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), A.P. State Electricity Board, Sanga Reddy, Ivledak District. 7- The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 8. The Chairman and Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 9. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 30-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhavatr, Opp. Saraswati Park, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam-s30 020. 10. The Chairman and Managing Director, Southem Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 19-3-13, Upstairs of Hero Honda Show Room, Renigunta Road, Tirupati-s17 501. 11.The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd-. #201, 2nd Floor, Ivly Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-SO0 063. 12.One CC to Sri PRASHANTH V.R.N., Advocate [OPUC] 13. One CC to Sri K. GOPAL CHOUDARY, Senior Counsel [OPUC] 14.One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TS TRANSCO [OPUCI 15. One CC to SRI VENKAT CHALLA, SC FOR AP TRANSCO [OPUC] 16. One CC to SRI l."4. KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR APGPCL [OPUC] 1 Z. One CC to IVI/s. INDUS LAW FlRtVl, Advocate [OPUC] 1B.One CC ro SRI CHALLA GTJNARANJAN, A(ivocate IOPUCi 1g One CC to SRI G.\-/ S.GANESH, Advocate IOPUC] 20. Two CD Copies I

44 HIGH COURT DATED:1610812023 COMMON JUDGMENT /-: I,5 1,,-: \.; 26 SEP 2M ar\';' : TAiF Y '(. Aii W.A.Nos.2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2159, 21 60, 2161, 2162, 2163, 2164, 2165, 21 66, 2167,2168 of 2A04; and W.P.No.8964 of 2004 and W.A.Nos.S8, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,257,268, 269, 807, 892, 893, 894, 895, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 910, 91 1, 912, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1305, 1600, 1601, 1607 and 2300 of2005 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION & DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS x -li'_.:., ,.",_-..2