High Court · 2025

petition under Article 226 of the donstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanQes stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WR|ToFcERTloRARlbycallingrecordsoftheimpunedFinalAssessment Order passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Order No' DEE/OP/RJNRiF.No.FAO/23.D No461'l/23 dated 2'2'2024 and quash the same duly declaring the s;ame is contrary to law and General rerms anrl conditions of Supply,2006 and Tariff Order for FY 2023-24 besides violations Section 56 and '126 of Electricity ltct,2003 and Article 14 of constitution of lndia and further contrary to principles of natural Justice and consequenfly to direct the Respondents !o treat the petitioners Electricity connection service no.341B 06270 be treated as Cate,gory -l (Domestic) or'any other appJopriqte category as pgr law and congequentlv direct Respondent_s forebear from disconnection of poWer Supply to their Service Nos.34 18 0629 and 3418 06210 of the petitionerq Association. .t lA No: I oE ?02a Petition unde' Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Final Assessment order passed by the 3rd Rgspondent in his order No. DEE/oP/RJNR/F No.FAo/23.D.No461 1123 dated 2-2-zoz4 including consequerrtial proceedings if any pending disposal of the above rlyrit petition. lA NO: 2 OF 24 Between: Company Of Telangana State Liniited At Rljender Nagaf}yderabrd 6-5-'10, Mint Compound, Hyderabad Reir Director

1. The southern frower Dislribution ccimpany qlT€ldngana state l,imitod, off at -by its ehaiiman-ana Mihiting 2 The supennlenoing Engineer, (operatrons) The Southegl power Distribution -' - --- 3 The Divisional Engineer, _(Etecfl-operations) The Southqlh power Distribution Company Of Tetangana State Limited At Rdjendra trtagai, HyaeriniO. - -- - Southern Power Rajendra Nagar, _Engineer. (Operations) Tl1'ei Telangana State Limited At

4. T[e Assistant Divisional Distribution Ccrnrpany Of Hyderabad.

5. The Assistant A.ccounts qffi9eq,.(AAOXERo) The southern power Distribution Company Of Tetangana State Limited'At Galanphad, HVO"TaUIO. AND 1 Ke__erthi Richmond villas owner s welfare Association, (Regn No.50g/201g) Office at 8-3-400 Ctub House reehrri RicrrmoilV;iiri b*-Ciiv,HVO6igudJ Bandlaguda Jagir, Hyderabad-500086 nepreienGa' uy it, C.neiJi S;;;EA; ...PETITIONERS Mrs S.Pavani Reddy w/o S.Arlun . Reddy keerthi Richmond Viilas Sun City, Hydergu qana, DePartment Principal Secr'etary

2. The State of Telan Hyderabad ReP bY its Aoed. 65 Years R/o Villa No 96 dabandlagudaJagir, HYderabad' of Energy $ecretariat Buildings ...RESPONDENTS 4 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased tq vacate the interim Qrdera daled 07'02'2024 in lA' No' 01 of 2Q24 in WP N0' 4924 oI 2024 and dismiss the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J'SRINADH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 5: SRIN'SR-EEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TSTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No'6: AGP FOR ENERGY a The Court made the following: ORDER s : z HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA RITP ETITI ON o.49240 20 N F 4,/ ORDER: Heard Sri J. Srinadh Reddn learned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioner, rearned Assistant Government pteader for Energy appearing on behalf of respondent No,G and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, tearned Standing Counsel for TS Transco appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.I to 5. ..

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: ".._to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT or the mp,usn"o rnu ::r::fl::ff;:::;::::;T;: 3'd Respondent vid FAo/23 D. No.467t/2: .I'; ll;1;THj}ri same duly rleclaring the same is contrary td law and General Te.ms and conditions of Supply 2006 and Tariff Order for Fy ZO23_24 besides violations Section 56 and 126 of Electricity Act 2003 and Article 14 of Constitution of India ancl further contrary to principles of natural justice and r:onsequenfly to direct the Respondents to treat the petitioners Electricity connection service Aio. 3478 06270 be treated as Category_I (Domestic) or any 2 wP 4924 2074 appropriate category as per law and consequently Respondents forebear from disconnection direct of power supply to their Service Nos'3418 0629 and 3418 06270 of the petitioners Association and pass" "'

3. The case of the petitioner' in brief is that the petitioner association was formed for welfare and maintenance of Richmond Villas owners/residents and it was constructed exclusively for the use of residents of Richmond Villas only' In the year 2019 the inspecting officer from 1't respondent conducted inspection of the villa premises and found that the electricity service connection wasusedforcommercialpurposesagainstthesanctionfor domestic use and a provisional assessment order was issued by the 4th respondent on 2L.lL.2Ot9 against the builder assessing an amount of Rs'1,64'008/- and it wap-paiti to the sth respondent' On 12.L2.2020 the then President of the Association submitted a representation to the respondents with a requ&t to change the category of two service connections Sc No''341806269 and ' The petitioners 34t8O6270 from commercial to non-commercia on 02.08.2023, filed representations to the 3'd resPondent the Provisional to set aside 06.10.2023 and 20'Ol'2024 Assessment order and reassess both the service connections but !he,, 3'd respondent upheld the said order vide order No' ( :#iitl t- /,'/ I J DEE/OPlRlN&/F.No.FAO/23, D.No. 02.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said order passed by th,= rs5pg6dent No.3, the present writ petition is filed. dated 02.02.2024 sN', wP 4924-?024 4611/23, dated

4. This Court vide its interim order dated 27.r,2.2024 passed interim order in I.A. No.1 ol 2024 in W.p. No.4924 of 2()24 in favour of the petitioner observing as uncler: "This Interlocutory Application is filed seet:ing the Court to suspend the operation of Final Assessment Order pa:ssed by the 3.d respondent in his order NoI. DEE/OPIFJNR/F.No.FAO/23.D.No. 46IL/23, dared 02.02.20r!.4 including consequential proceedings , if a.y, pending disposal of the Writ petition. He,ard Sri A. Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, who arguercl on behalf of Sri J. Srinadh Reddy, Iearned counsel on record for the petitionei, as welt as Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSpDCIL, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Having considered the submisqion of earned counsel for the petitioner, there: shall be interim suspension of operation of Final Assessment Order passed by 3.a respondent yide order No.DEE/Op/RJNR/F.No. FAO/23.D.No. 46lL/23, dated O2.O2.2O24 suject to payment of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by the F- \& 4 wP 4924 2024 petitioner on or before 07.O3'2O24' the respondents-a uthorities' ..1 List on t2'O3'2O24"' EC OR D PERUS D TH E 5. The impugned proceedings dated 02'02'2024 of the 3'd respondent clearly indicates that appeal against the said order lies before superintending Engineer/operation/Rajendra Nagar within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order along with a i'e' deposit of 5Oo/o of provisional assessment charg€s Rs.10,82,407.0/- by the petitioner'

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner herein had complied with the orders of this of 2024 and had Court dated 27-02'2024 passed in 1t'A"'No'1 deposited an amount of Rs'5'00'000/- before 07'03'2024 and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to$refer an appeal beforetheSUperintendingEngineer/operation/RajendraNagar, who is the Appellate Authority in this regard to consider all the pleas put forth by the petitioner pertaining to the subject issue as raised in the present writ petition and other legal pleas as are permissible to the petitioner within a reasonable period and the the same and appellate authority may be directed to -adjudicate i ;' 5 \t\P 4924 _2024 decide legality of the final assessment No. DEElOPlRlNRi F./No.FAO/23, D.No.46tI/23,dated 02.02.2024 and pass appr,cpriate orders in accordance to law.

7. The observations of the Apex Court in judgment dated 2O.O4.2O21 reported in (2o2L) 6 scc 77L in Mls. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal pradesh, which referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (199g) g SCC 1 and the said view had been reiterated in a recent full bench judglnent reported an 2O2L SCC Online SC 8O1 in ..Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others,,. The principles governing the exercase of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy had been summarized in the said Judgment at:para 2g and the same is extracted hereunder: "28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcen.lent of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertaan a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is availabte to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rure of arternate remedy aiise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for tfre eniorcement oF a I 6 wP 4924 2024 right protected by Part III of the fundamental Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural iusiiie; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without juiisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself {oes,n9t divest the High iou.t of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriaie case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescriUes thJremedy or procedure for enforcing the .igtrt o. liability, resort must be had to that particular st-atutory remedy before invoking the discretionary iemedy under Article 226 ot the Constitution' This ,rt. of exhaustion of statutory remedies tb a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact' inu Hign Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ fetitioi. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with." 8 Takino into consideration. (a) The submissions made bY &e learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and the learned Standing Counse! appearing on behalf of the resfondents, I, I (b) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgment referred to and extracted above in particular clause (ii) and clause (v), before , *, onro ,i)i The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer an appeat Superintending Engineer/Operation/Rajendra Nagar duly raising all the pteas as put forth by the petitioner pertaining to the subject issue as raised in the present writ petition and other legal pleas as are permissible to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the petitioner preferring an Engineer/Operation/Rajendra Superintending appeal before a' Nagar, the Appeflate Authority shall adjudicate the same and decade the legality of the final assessment order vide No.DEE/Opl RJNR/F.No./FaO/23, D.No. 4611123, dated O2.O2.2O24 of the 3.d respondent herein within fo;a.; {a) weeks thereafter in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing a reasonable <ilportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in the said appeal to be prefirred against the Final Assessment order impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition dated O2.O2.2O24 of the 3.d respondent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8 wP 4924 2024 The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY'/ ^33,';h^HiES!?iiH CTTON OFFICER ,:ii"?j.t:l3t?lgUffi .1%:'EP:?3:?113:il;lli'SJf ff'1"'''1li'otBB"?:'o-"' 2 To, 'I:'d:ff 'dl't""-i:'if:''tl'''"S'llt}'ts"?R':'i:[ff]erDistribution .u"',B:Hi"&is:fl U}".":;Ei{#fl 3l'xiH.ljJxo?"'fr , .B:fJ:ff %l rlgu:;, (3g?:"1:1,:Lo'x' R:i:',F[ s:ffI "lJ."l"-?:HtDistribution ;1,",.s?i.ji Hyderabad ne southern Power Distribution t?L]li;i;:''iF""o"q' or EnereY secretariat Bu,drnss 'ffi m'ai']+tTJll:3{j?yi'ffi"?)ffi t l!:",-E['13:o6l,"{?;:ffi; '"0'n*"" 7' One Ce to SRI J $RINADH REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI B. one cC to QRI * 'ff'q'oo REDDY' ::t-o* tt,tl- t-'*o"-"n t5'i't tor the state or Telansana at rsrRANSco toPucl ' Iffi"AB:.t" 10.Two cD copies $ BSR BS w t *;:; -_-"--l t 1 r{E STe ,( l,^ ( o () 04 ilAll 2r25 r c t o6', iPAt , \ t HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112025 t ORDER WP.No.4924 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS p*dd Y4- (rW