Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 211 (AP)

Madati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late M. Devaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Energy

2021-03-30

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2021
ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing for Respondent No.1; Mr.Y.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 4; Mr. Metta Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5; and Mr. P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. 3. This Public Interest Litigation is filed praying for implementation of new power tariff, imposed from 01.04.2020, after lock down is revoked and to direct the Respondents to issue two separate monthly power bills for the months of March, 2020 and April, 2020. 4. From a perusal of the petition, it is apparent that tariff structure is not called into question and what is prayed is imposition of the new tariff structure after lock down, imposed due to Covid19, is withdrawn. We see no ground to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner as the implementation of the tariff structure had already taken place. 5. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, in the affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that due to lock down, it was not possible to record consumption of March, 2020 in April, 2020 and therefore, since there was no alternative, the electricity consumption could be recorded only in the month of May, 2020, after the lock down was partially lifted. Software programme was developed in such a way that Tariff would be collected from the consumers basing on the consumption of March, 2020 as per the prevailing tariff for the financial year 2019-2020 and new tariff rates as per tariff order issued for the financial year 2020-2021 by APERC for the units consumed in April and till the date of recording meter reading in the month of May, 2020. 6. In paragraph 16 of the affidavit of respondent No.4 it is stated as follows : “16. 6. In paragraph 16 of the affidavit of respondent No.4 it is stated as follows : “16. This respondent submits that the days of consumption of units of the consumer from the date of meter reading in March’ 2020 till the date of meter recording in May’ 2020 is restricted for 60 days and average units consumed per day were calculated by dividing the total consumed units by 60 days and after arrival of average day consumption, the tariff for the month of April’ 2020 and till the date of meter recording in May’ 2020 was calculated as per new tariff rates approved by the APERC for the F.Y. 2020-21 and for remaining days in the month of March’ 2020 as per the tariff rates prescribed for the F.Y. 2019-20.” 7. In our considered opinion, prayer relating to issuance of two separate monthly bills do not come within the ambit of Public Interest Litigation. If the petitioner has got any grievance in respect of the same, he may approach the appropriate forum to redress his individual grievance. 8. The Writ Petition (PIL) is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.