Bhagyalakshmi Communication vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Admission (A P S E B)
Before:
Hon'ble D.V.S.S.Somayajulu
Listed On:
24 Mar 2022
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.6069 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl.<br>No. | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE<br>NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2022 | DVSS, J | ||
| Heard<br>the<br>learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the | |||
| petitioner and<br>Sri Siva Ramakrishna<br>for Sri | |||
| Y.Nagi<br>Reddy<br>learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the<br>respondents. | |||
| Learned counsel for the petitioner argues | |||
| that the issue raised in this writ petition is similar | |||
| to the issue in number of writ petitions<br>which are | |||
| pending<br>before this<br>court. | |||
| The issue raised in<br>all these<br>writ petitions | |||
| is about the right of the respondents to collect | |||
| electrical<br>pole<br>rental charges.<br>The<br>learned | |||
| counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire | |||
| GO on the basis on which the rental charges | |||
| have<br>been levied<br>is suspended. He also draws | |||
| the attention of this court to an order passed in | |||
| WP.No.11850<br>of<br>2019,<br>wherein<br>the<br>Chief | |||
| General Manager<br>of the respondents<br>issued a | |||
| memo<br>stating<br>that<br>as<br>the GO<br>itself<br>is | |||
| suspended.<br>All the<br>field officers are directed | not | ||
| to<br>insist<br>the<br>rental charges<br>on the electric poles. | |||
| Similar orders are passed in other matters also. | |||
| Therefore,<br>the learned counsel relying on | |||
| these<br>orders and also the provisions of<br>The | |||
| Cable<br>Television<br>Networks<br>(Regulation)<br>Act, | |||
| 1995 argues that the demand<br>for rental<br>charges | |||
| is beyond the competence<br>of the respondents | |||
| which has been opposed<br>by<br>the earlier interim | |||
| order. | |||
| In<br>response<br>to<br>this,<br>Sri<br>Siva<br>Rama | |||
| Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents |
argues that the GO which was suspended with regard to enhancement of earlier charges. According to him by a process of misinterpretation, the petitioner has not paid the pole charges which are in force earlier. In a letter given by the petitioner dated 22.03.2022, he had actually undertaken to pay the arrears in instalments. It is also submitted that pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner paid Rs. 10,000/ and the service connection was restored. He submits that the second letter dated 22.03.2022 issued by the petitioner is an afterthought. Therefore, he submits that it is not a case where the Interim order should be granted.
In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first letter was issued under compulsion.
Considering all the submissions made, this Court notices that there is a distinction in this case. The petitioner is an experienced business man and has given a letter agreeing to pay the outstanding and in fact paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-, pursuant to the letter which was accepted. However, the larger issues raised also merit consideration and in the opinion of this Court, all the writ petitions would be decided together. Therefore as an interim measure, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.81385/- with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to avoid further disconnection.
It is made clear that this order being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the petitioner himself has addressed a letter agreeing to pay the amount in instalment and has also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-
| pursuant<br>to the said letter. | |
|---|---|
| List on 14.04.2022. | |
| _______ | |
| DVSS,J | |
| AG | |