Telangana High Court
Deputy General Managervvspl, vs Sourther Power Distribution Company Of ... on 29 January, 2020
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.39906 of 2016
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. A.P.SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED1, by which this Court allowed W.P.No.23037 of 2012 vide order dated 08.10.2015 directing the respondents therein to reclassify the petitioner's Unit at Kattubadipalem, Vijayawada, under HT Category-I and revise the bills with effect from 01.02.2005 when the respondents have changed its category from HT Category-I to HT Category-II and adjust the excess tariff collected from the petitioner in future bills.
He further submits that the petitioner's Corporation is transporting fuel from Visakha Terminal through various pipelines to Ghatkesar Terminal via Rajahumundry, Vijayawada, Suryapet. He further submits that the learned Single Judge in the above said case has considered whether the petitioner was doing industrial activity or not by considering the manufacturing process and preserving aspects also and categorically held that the petitioner was doing activity of processing and preserving fuels and gave a specific finding in favour of the petitioner therein that it has involved in industrial activity and changed the category from HT-II to HT-I. He further submits that the very same 1 2016 (2) ALT 349 petitioner has filed the above said writ petition in respect of Vijayawada Terminal and the present issue pertains to Suryapet Terminal. Therefore, the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and, therefore, requested to pass appropriate orders accordingly in the present Writ Petition also.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has filed counter affidavit and the principal objection raised by him is that the activity of the petitioner does not come under industrial activity and the petitioner is only transporting fuel from Visakaha Terminal to Ghatkesar Terminal. Therefore, the category cannot be changed from HT-II to HT-I. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the principal objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel was dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the above said case and allowed the said writ petition as stated supra. Therefore, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment in W.P.No.23037 of 2012 dated 08.10.2015. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 29-01-2020 Prv