Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Mayuri Cinema Hall, vs The Government Of India, on 3 April, 2025
APHC010307012020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NOs: 18433, 20324, 20494,
23250 and 25711 / 2020
W.P. NO: 18433/2020
Between:
M/s Mayuri Cinema Hall, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. METTA CHANDRASEKHARA RAO
2. GP FOR ENERGY
W.P.No.20324 / 2020
Between:
Aditya Theatre and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. METTA CHANDRASEKHARA RAO
Page 2 of 9
2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP)
3. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
4.
W.P.NO: 20494/2020
Between:
Sri Jayalakshmi and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENERGY
2. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
3.
4. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL)
5. V V SATISH
W.P.NO: 23250/2020
Between:
The Sai Ram Movie Land (shiridi Sai And Parthi Sai), and ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL)
2. GP FOR ENERGY
Page 3 of 9
3. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
4. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
5. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
6. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL)
7. V V SATISH
W.P.NO: 25711/2020
Between:
The Surya Cinemax, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
2. PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. V V SATISH
The Court made the following:
:: COMMON ORDER ::
Since the subject matter in the above writ petitions is the same, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners -Theaters, represented by respective Managers, filed the above writ petitions to declare the action of the authorities of the respective divisions of the Andhra Pradesh Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') in not revising the electricity consumption charges during the period of lockdown till reopening of Theaters, as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct them not to collect the Page 4 of 9 minimum demand charges of electricity consumption, during the lockdown period.
3. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the theaters come under the category-II(A) of High-Tension (HT). Before the imposition of the lockdown by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the petitioners used to pay the consumption charges. During Covid-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Home Affairs, to prevent the spread of covid-19, imposed lockdown through order No.4-3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020, incorporating a condition that in case of any violation of the order, the authority will proceed as per Sections 51 to 60 of the Disaster of Management Act, 2005 and also initiate legal action under Section 118 of IPC. The petitioners shut down the theaters in the interest of the public. The lockdown period was again extended by order dated 29.08.2020.
b) Despite the closure of theaters, the Corporation issued consumption charges bills. In July, 2020, the sub-ordinate staff took away the fuse connections due to non-payment of electricity consumption. Condition No.4.2.1.1, Category-II (a): Commercial (ii) Major - HT, in Chapter-X Part 'B' of the terms and conditions of the Retail Supply Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2020-21 deals with i) the billing, and demand shall be the Maximum Demand Recorded during the month or 80% of the contracted demand, whichever is higher and ii) Energy charges will be billed based on actual Energy consumption or 25 kVAh for kVA of billing demand whichever is higher.
c) The said proviso would apply in the case of consumption of energy during normal days. Since the petitioners did not utilize the electricity during the lockdown, the Corporation is not entitled to collect minimum demand charges.
Page 5 of 94. An interim order was granted on 09.10.2020 directing the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the petitioners, subject to the payment of 25% of the arrears.
5. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the authorities of the respective divisions of the Corporation. It was contended, inter alia, that each consumer has an obligation to pay minimum charges irrespective of the utilization of power. The Discom is erecting and maintaining the poles and lines by spending crores of rupees and hence, has been collecting minimum charges irrespective of consumption. If the petitioners intend to seek any relief regarding tariff, they must approach the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'APERC').
b) As per APERC /General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees- Appendix II A, even if no electricity is consumed, the minimum charges shall be payable. Bills were issued to the petitioners claiming monthly minimum charges.
c) Clause 8.3.1 of general terms and conditions envisages that in the event of default in payment of charges of electricity or any other sum, other than charge for the supply of electricity due, the company may disconnect the supply following 'Electricity Supply Code' read with Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
d) There are huge arrears from the petitioners. The authorities raised the demand to the extent of power utilized, and no additional charges or penalties are imposed. For the delayed payment, the consumer has to pay interest at 18% on the arrears. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel on either side.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit, would contend that due to the circular Page 6 of 9 issued by the Central Government, the petitioners' theaters were closed during the lockdown. Hence, directing the petitioners to pay minimum monthly charges is illegal and arbitrary.
8. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, would contend that each of the petitioners executed a separate agreement with the distribution company, agreeing to pay monthly minimum charges. He would also submit that the bills were issued as per the terms and conditions and the Electricity Supply Code (Regular Commission Act, 2004). He would further submit that as per the Electricity Regulation No.5 of 2024, framed under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003, 12 installments can be granted to the petitioners for paying the arrears, and whenever installments are granted regarding arrears, the consumer has to pay interest at 18%.
9. In reply, learned counsels would request to waive the interest at 18% and further submitted that the petitioners will pay the arrears in 12 installments. Regarding payment of arrears in 12 installments, this court records the statements of learned counsels for the petitioners.
10. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the agreements entered into by each of the petitioners with the Corporation for the supply of electricity. The agreements contain a clause regarding payment of minimum charges. Clause 5.9.12 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees envisages the agreement as provided in Appendix II (A).
11. Clause 10 of the agreement, which provides monthly minimum charges, reads as follows:
"I/We shall pay minimum charges every month as prescribed in tariff, and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply even if no electricity is consumed for any reasons whatsoever and also if the charges for electricity actually consumed are less than the minimum charges for Page 7 of 9 electricity actually consumed are less than the minimum charges. The minimum charges shall also be payable by me/us even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Company because of non-payment of electricity charges, Theft of Electricity or unauthorised Use of Electricity or for any other valid reason."
12. Thus, a perusal of clause 10 in the agreements entered into by the petitioners with the Corporation indicates that the petitioners are bound to pay minimum monthly charges, even in the absence of any consumption of electricity. Further, during the lockdown period, the Corporation maintained its infrastructure. Therefore, the order issued by the Government, vide No.4- 3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020, imposing lockdown, will not come in the way of the respondents in demanding minimum monthly charges either under the agreement or as per General Terms and Conditions etc.,.
13. Thus, the demand bills issued to each of the petitioners to pay the Minimum Monthly Charges, based upon the agreement and terms and conditions, can neither be declared as a nullity nor suffer from vices. However, the petitioners shall pay the arrears in 12 installments, given the submission at the hearing.
14. Insofar as the interest is concerned, though the learned standing counsel would contend that, as per regulation No.5 of 2024, the Corporation is entitled for interest at 18% per annum on the arrears, one should not be oblivious about the order issued by the Government vide order No.4-3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020, imposing lockdown. It is a fact that all the movie theaters were closed during the lockdown period.
15. Indeed, keeping in view, the economic conditions during lockdown, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association(Registered) vs Union of India and Others1, while dealing with 1 (2021) 8 SCC 511 Page 8 of 9 the issue of whether there shall be waiver of compound interest/penal interest/ interest on interest, on loans during moratorium period, held as follows:
103. However, it is directed that there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium and any amount already recovered under the same head, namely, interest on interest/penal interest/compound interest shall be refunded to the borrowers concerned and to be given credit/adjusted in the next instalment of the loan account.
16. Therefore, taking a clue from the above ruling, in the opinion of this Court, the claim of the respondents regarding 18% of the interest is on the higher side and the same is to be reduced. This court deems it appropriate that interest at 6% is reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
17. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
i) The petitioners shall clear the arrears in 12 equal monthly installments starting from May 2025, payable by the 10th of every succeeding month.
ii) The petitioners shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears. If the petitioners fail to pay the arrears as referred to supra, it is open to the Corporation to take steps as per the Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 03.04.2025 ikn Page 9 of 9 231 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOs: 18433, 20324, 20494, 23250 and 25711 / 2020 Dated: 03.04.2025 IKN