ORDER : The petitioners, who are the Managing Partners of their respective Rice Mills (15 in number) situated in East Godavari District, filed writ petition jointly to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents by levying penal charges in terms of Restrictions & Control Measures as notified by the 4th respondent and including the amounts in the H.T. Electricity bills for the months of April, 2022 and May, 2022 of East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their rice mills are trading industry converting paddy into rice, sale of rice in open market and also to comply with quota of levy rice to the Civil Supplies Department. The rice mills are running on the electricity provided by the respondents having service connections under High Tension Industry (General)-III A category having contracted demand under 11 K.V. common transformer supply. An agreement of electricity supply was executed in favour of the respondents under the provisions of the Electricity Act. They have never violated the terms of supply and not committed any breach of agreement. They are paying monthly electricity bills to the respondents. The respondents provided a three phase meter for recording actual current in units consumed by their rice mill. There is another tri-vector meter provided to record the load in Kilo Volts Ampere Hours (K.V.A.H). As per Term No.2.2.35, the maximum demand for a month is taken at twice the maximum number of K.V.A.H. delivered at the point of supply to their rice mills during any consecutive 30 minutes during the month. Since their rice mills are having contracted demand of less than 65.3630 K.V.A.H., H.T. monthly bills are prepared by the office of the 2nd respondent. As per the declared Restrictions and Control Measures, the H.T. consumers are permitted only to use 50% of the CMD. But, the rice milling industry requires all the machinery should work together at one time and it is impossible for them to run the rice mill at 50% CMD. It is further states that the respondents issued notice for continuous process industries under H.T. supply that Restrictions and Control Measures of power supply having been imposed from 23.04.2022 to 30.04.2022 initially and later it was extended from 01.05.2022 to 15.05.2022. It is further states that the respondents issued notice for continuous process industries under H.T. supply that Restrictions and Control Measures of power supply having been imposed from 23.04.2022 to 30.04.2022 initially and later it was extended from 01.05.2022 to 15.05.2022. During that period, it was permitted to utilize the complete load from 6.00 AM to 6.00 PM (day time only) and to restrict the load to lighting only from 6.00 PM to 6 AM and two days power holiday to be implemented on Sunday and Tuesday. The 4th respondent – APERC issued the impugned Restrictions and Control (R&C) Order at the instance of DISCOMs in the State by approving their proposals on controlling the use of electricity by the consumers due to shortage in supply and the DISCOMs are unable to meet with 100% demand of supply. As per the order passed by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent issued orders that for any breach of the Restrictions and Control Measures, a penalty would be levied against the industrial consumers including their rice mills. Their rice milling industry as a whole in the State suffered a serious set back due to Covid-19 pandemic period. They could not operate their business activity totally during the said period. When the normalcy is restored, they just started their production activity of rice milling. In the meanwhile, the R&C measures are imposed on their Rice Milling industry. The imposition of R&C measures is a reflection of total mismanagement on the part of DISCOMs and as a result of that, ultimately the electricity consumers like their rice mills are put to suffer. They have to supply levy rice to the Civil Supplies Department as per the quotas fixed by it and they have also to comply with the supply agreement with outsiders. In those circumstances, it has become impossible for them to co-opt with the R&C measures. On the other hand, the average rate per unit of electricity is Rs.7.14 Ps., out of that Rs.0.26 per unit is attributable to subsidies as the State Government is going on granting subsidies, but not replenishing the funds to that extent to the DISCOMs. Therefore, the DISCOMs are in a dis-array position in managing their financial commitments. The State Government has to pay heavy amount of dues to the DISCOMs. Therefore, the DISCOMs are in a dis-array position in managing their financial commitments. The State Government has to pay heavy amount of dues to the DISCOMs. The DISCOMs are unable to recover their pending electricity dues and thereby these financial difficulties are ultimately transferred to electricity consumers. It is further states that the R&C measures imposed on the Industrial category consumers has considerably reduced the consumption of electricity by their rice milling units. As a result of the same, their rice mills are unable to meet with the demand for supply of production. However, the DISCOM is bound to make continuous supply to their rice mills and when it failed to provide continuous supply as per the terms of the agreement, it is not entitled to impose any penalties for its default of short supply of energy. The extra amount charged to their rice mills in East Godavari District is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. The details of working data are not reflected in the current bill dated 05.06.2022 for the months of April, 2022 and May, 2022, but the period of time and volume of current misused are not specified in the said electricity bills. Their rice mills are not liable to pay the amount and no surprise checks were conducted in their rice mills. 3. The impugned notices dated 18.06.2022 were issued by APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram stating that the APERC issued instructions on Restriction and Control Measures (R&C) and also notified certain guidelines for levy of Penal Charges on noncompliance with R&C measures during the period from 15.04.2022 to 30.04.2022. However, the C.C. bills for the month of 04/2022 in 05/2022 were issued on 05.05.2022 without levying the Penal Charges for violation of Restriction and Control measures and also informed in the bill duly stating that “This is a provisional bill. After verification of records, the bill will be revised as per Restrictions and Control (R&C) measures issued by Hon’ble APERC”. Accordingly, the revised bill along with R&C Penal Charges (from 15.04.2022 to 30.04.2022) for the month of 04/2022 in 05/2022 has been arrived for violation of Restriction and Control (R&C) measures and they are requested to pay the balance (Penal) charges within 15 days from the date of notice. However, the revised bill for the month of 04/2022 in 05/2022 is enclosed for ready reference. However, the revised bill for the month of 04/2022 in 05/2022 is enclosed for ready reference. In view of the above, all the petitioners are requested to arrange the payment of Penal Charges mentioned in their respective bills towards violation of R&C measures for the month of April, 2022 Bill within 15 days from date of receipt of notice without any further intimation. 4. Rule 4A of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 applicable to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh envisages that two or more persons raising common questions of law or persons having a common cause of action may join in a single writ petition paying a single set of court fees. 5. The Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Mota Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1981 SC 484 , distinguished the “same cause of action” from “similar cause of action” and, in that light, held that a single writ petition was maintainable, where the right to do the relief arose from the same act or transaction in which case one writ petition was maintainable on one set of court fee, but whether the right of claim did not arise from the same act or transaction and where the petitioners were jointly interested in the similar cause of action, and even though, the writ petition filed by more than one person was maintainable, nonetheless, the cause of action not being joint and there being an independent cause of action of each of the petitioners, such petitioners would be liable to pay separate court fee. But, in the present case on hand, admittedly the petitioners filed this writ petition jointly without giving reasons in the affidavit for doing so. 6. Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, would contend that the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram, issued different independent notices dated 18.06.2022 to the petitioners for payment of penal charges towards violation of Restriction and Control (R&C) measures for the month of April, 2022 bill within 15 days from the date of receipt of a notice. He would further contend that the “same cause of action” for filing the writ petition is different from “similar cause of action”. He would further contend that the “same cause of action” for filing the writ petition is different from “similar cause of action”. The subject notices are not impugned in this writ petition, but sought for writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents for levying penal charges in terms of Restrictions & Control Measures as notified by the 4th respondent and including the amounts in the H.T. Electricity bills for the months of April, 2022 and May, 2022 of East Godavari District. The petitioners are also prayed for stay of the demand charges of Rs.6,19,741/- included in the current bill for the month of May, 2022 dated 05.06.2022, imposed as penal charges in respect of petitioners’ rice mills in East Godavari District, as an interim measure. Though the petitioners are different rice mills, yet they sought for stay of the vague amount. He would also contend that single writ petition is not maintainable against the 15 independent demand notices and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for about one hour, failed to satisfy this Court and further alleged that this Court is not allowing him to argue extensively. However, this Court while sitting in admission and interlocutory matters, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Further, this Court found that nothing is averred about the maintainability of the single writ petition by the Managing Partners of 15 rice mills as required under the writ rules. In the absence of the same, the petitioners could not be permitted to pursue the single writ petition for the relief they sought as it is against the writ rules. Hence, if the costs are imposed on the petitioners for wasting the precious time of this Court from rendering justice to genuine litigants who approached the Court with legitimate grievances, it would meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only), payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.