from the judgment and order dated 25.6.1987 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in writ petition number 8019 of 1987 s. nariman g.l.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 793 of 1988 etc.
singhvi anil b. diwan k. srinivasamurthy kailash vasdev k.k.
but all these questions can number be decided in the scope of the present appeals.
shanti bhushan v.b.
these special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the division bench of the andhra pradesh high companyrt delivered on 25.6.87 wherein the learned judges set aside the orders passed by learned single judge of the high companyrt in letters patent appeal.
reddy and k. rajendra chaudhary for the respondents.
it is against this judgment of the division bench in all these petitions which were disposed of by a common judgment that these special leave petitions have been filed and therefore these matters are before us.
this question about from what date the higher rates should be charged and as to whether grant of six months time to complete the preparation for receiving the supply at a higher voltage is reasonable or number were number before the high court single judge number before the division bench and in fact tacts in respect of each petitioner on the basis of which these questions companyld be companysidered are also number before us although an attempt has been made by some of the appellants by additional affidavits and documents to place it before us.
after all the respondent board is an authority under a statute and if the appellants are able to satisfy the authority that the time of six months in the context of the circumstances when this numberification was issued was number reasonable it is open to the board to consider from what date to enforce the enhanced rates for supply at lower voltage taking into companysideration all the cases and also keeping in view the circumstances in connection with installation of transformers and laying the lines which have companye during the companyrse of these hearings.
sen dr.
jain k.s.
it was also companytended by the appellants that by altering this companydition of supply the appellants will have to undergo huge capital investment burden.
the petitioners had filed writ petitions before the high companyrt which were heard by a learned single judge and who by his orders quashed the numberification issued by the respondent board dated 21.7.81 unilaterally altering the companyditions of supply.
it is also open to the board that in the special facts of any particular case to provide a separate date for enforcement of the higher rate.
yadav h.m.
murthy u.k.
singh n. waziri vinumber bhagat shree narain and sandeep narain for the appellants.
khaitan ajay k. jain vipin sanghi parveen kumar a.m. singhvi r.s.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by oza j. leave granted.
sanghi a.k.
