Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rpp Ltd vs Eastern on 3 March, 2026
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010407582007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No: 12654 of 2007
Between:
1. RPP LTD., H. NO. 1
1-B,
B, (NEW No. 618) ARORA COLONY, ROAD NO.3,
BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500034 REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR SRI Y.V.SUBBA RAO, S/o.Y.RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED 46 YEARS, R/o.H.No. 1 1-B,
B, (NEW No. 618) ARORA COLONY,
ROAD No. 3, BANJARA H HILLS, HYDERABAD 500034.
2. SYNERGIES-DOORAY
DOORAY AUTOMOTIVES LTD., PLOT Nos. 3 & 4,
VISAKHAPATNAM EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, DUVVADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM 530046, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI
SEKHAR MOVVA S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO MOVVA AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS R/O 9-19
19-4, CBM COMPOUND,
3. PANTALOON RETAIL INDIA LTD., G.V. MANOR, STATION ROAD,,
VISAKHAPATNAM, 16, REP BY ITS STORES MANAGER, SRI. K.
GANESH BABU S/O SRI K. KRISHNA RAO AGED 33 YEARS R/O AT
45-52-15/2,
15/2, AKKAIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. EASTERN
ERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA
PRADESH LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAI SHAKTI
OPP.SARASWATI PARK, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM
530020.
...RESPONDENT
2
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Mr.KATRAGADDA GOPAL CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Mr.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3 The Court made the following order:
Heard Mr.Gopala Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through online.
2. Referring to the orders dated 19.12.2023 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.14918 of 2006 & batch, the learned counsel submits that the matter is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench and further that the S.L.P., filed against the said order by the Central Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Limited vide S.L.P. No.25649 of 2024, was dismissed on 10.09.2024.
3. Mr.V.V.Satish, the learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL has fairly agreed that the matter is covered.
4. Perusing the orders on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition and in the result, the demands raised by the respondent-DISCOM authorities towards cross subsidy surcharge from the 2nd and 3rd petitioners is declared as illegal and demands raised in this regard are quashed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 03.03.2026 BLV 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 12654 of 2007 Date: 03.03.2026 BLV