ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Hyderabad

Dated: 19- 02-2005

Present

Sri K. Swaminathan, Chairman

Sri. K.Sreerama Murthy, Member

Sri Surinder Pal, Member

I.A. No. 25 of 2005

In

R.P No. 3 of 2005

Between

Central Power Distribution Company

of Andhra Pradesh Limited,

rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, …...… Petitioner

and

Nil …… Respondent

I.A. No. 26 of 2005

in

R.P No. 1 of 2005

Between :

Northern Power Distribution Company

of Andhra Pradesh Limited.

rep by its Chairman and Managing Director ……. Petitioner

and

Nil ….. Respondent

I.A. No. 27 of 2005

in

R.P No. 2 of 2005

Between :

Southern Power Distribution Company

of Andhra Pradesh Limited.

rep by its Chairman and Managing Director ……. Petitioner

and

Nil ….. Respondent

I.A. No. 28 of 2005

in

R.P No. 4 of 2005

Between :

Eastern Power Distribution Company

of Andhra Pradesh Limited.

rep by its Chairman and Managing Director ……. Petitioner

and

Nil ….. Respondent

All these petitions coming on for hearing on 17-02-2005 in the presence of Sri. H. L.Samariya, Chairman & Managing Director for APCPDCL, Sri Gopala Reddy, Chairman & Managing Director for NPDCL, Sri K.Ranganatham, Chairman & Managing Director for SPDCL and Sri N.V.S.K.Sriram, Director (Projects) for APEPDCL and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Commission delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. These petitions are filed under Section 94 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. Four separate review petitions - R.P.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2005 have been filed, one each by the above-mentioned four petitioners seeking similar relief on similar and identical grounds. Each of the petitioners in their respective review petitions has sought for amendment of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Licensee’s Duty For Supply Of Electricity On Request) Regulation, 2004 (Regulation 3 of 2004) published in the A.P.Official Gazette on 05.03.2004 (hereinafter, ‘Regulation No.3 of 2004’), specifically the provisions relating to recovery of expenditure for providing electric line or electrical plant.

3. Pending disposal of all the four review petitions, each of the four petitioners filed interlocutory applications – I.A.Nos.25, 26, 27 and 28 of 2005 - for stay of operation of the relevant provisions of Regulation No.3 of 2004 relating to recovery of expenditure for providing electric line or electrical plant.

4. One of the main grounds advanced by the petitioners during the course of hearing is that implementation of provisions of Regulation No.3 of 2004 is resulting in discrimination between the same class of consumers, in respect of recovery of charges from them for supply of electricity on demand.

5. On due consideration, the Commission is of the opinion, that a prima-facie case is made out by the petitioners. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that it is essential in the interest of justice that the clauses 5 to 11 of Regulation No.3 of 2004 are required to be suspended with immediate effect to avoid any possible discrimination in implementation of provisions of Regulation No.3 of 2004 entitling the petitioners to collect charges during the period of suspension of the provisions of the Regulation as they were collecting prior to the coming into force of the Regulation No3 of 2004. However, during the period of suspension, the charges collected by each of the petitioners for supply of electricity on demand to any consumer shall be subject to the final result of the main review petitions (R.P.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2005). In the result, all these applications are allowed suspending the operation of the clauses 5 to 11 of Regulation No.3/2004 till disposal of the main review petitions.

The order is corrected and signed on this 19^th day of February, 2005.

Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
Surinder Pal	K. Sreerama Murthy	K. Swaminathan
Member	Member	Chairman

CERTIFIED COPY