Limited oI 'Ielanqana) and Another v. Union of India Others in Special Leave Petition

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in issuing demands for payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge ( CSS ) for the FY 299-5-.-0-6-to 2014-15 vide'Lr.No. .SE/OP/SPRT/SAOiJAO/HT/D .No. 24112024, dt. 0610212025, issued by the 2nd Respondent purported to be based on the Tariff order dt. 30lOBl2Oi4 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the csS for FY 2005-06 lo 2014-15, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary 1o the Judgm"ent dl. 1gt12t2o23 of this Honourable court in w.P.No. 14918 of 2006 ina oaicrr, provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, besides being violative of the petitioner r iigf,t. guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1 Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same tA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct ir,. n".po"O"nts not io take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of powersupplypursuanttothedemandnoticevideLr.No.SE/OP/SPRT/SAo/JAo/ HT tD.No.2Ai t 2024, dt. oo t ozt 2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ADINARAYANA REP., FOR SRt. MANNAM SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER l l HON'BLE MRS JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.5098 0F 2025 ORDER: . Heard Sri Adinarayana, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Mannam Sridhar, !earned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsels for TSSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2.

2. The petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer: ' ..... to pass an order or orders or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in issuing demands for payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for the FY 2005-06 to 20t4-15 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/SPRT/SAO/JAO/HT/D No. 241/2024 dated 06/0212025 issued by the 2"d Respondent purported to be based on the Tariff Order dated 30/08/2024 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for FY 2005-06 to 2014-15 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the ludgment dated tg/12/2023 of this 2 wP 5098 2025 Honourarle Court in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch. t,rovisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, besides being violative of the petltioner's rights guarani:eed under Artlcles 14, 19 (1) (9) of thr: Constitution of India and consequently set aside the samr: and pass... ".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. -lhe petitioner had entered into a High Tension (HT) Agreement with the 1st respondent for power supply with a contra(:ted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 12500 KVA/HP. The petitione)r company was purchasing power from the generator M/:;. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Limited. Section 42 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates the State Electricity Commissions to implement Open Access in phases including cross-su bs id iers and other operational constraints and sales of electricity by such generating companies were not subiect to any Surchargr:. Following the lssuance of the Common Order by the learned fGERC, the 2nd respondent issued a demand notice vide Lr No. SE/OP/SPRT/ SAO/JAO/HTID.No. 241/2024, dated 06.02..1025. The demand notice sought payment of Rs.11,81,93,501/- (Rupees Eleven Crores Eighty one Lakhs a 3 wP 5098 2025 Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and One only) as CSS for the year FY 2005-06 to Fy 2014-15 with a clear stipulation that failing to do so would result in the surcharges being raised as per existing rules without further notice and service would be disconnected. It is further the case of the petitioner that the impugned demand raised by the respondents is a clear violation of Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005 and a direct contravention of the orders passed by this Court in W.p. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and hence liable to be set aside. Therefore. the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned demand notice v i d e Lr. No. S E/O P/SPRT/SAO/JAO/HTID. No. 24 I / 2024, dated 06.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the order of Division Bench of this Court dated tg.l2.Z\23 passed in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and W.p. No. 8252 of 2008 and also the order of the Apex Court dated

70.09.2024 passed in Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. td.. (Now Southe rn Power Dist bution Comoanv 4 wT, 5098 2025 Limited oI 'Ielanqana) and Another Versus Union of India & Others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25649/2024,and therefore the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of rescondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that as borne on record, the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 06.02.2025 had made a detailed representation dated 72.02..2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TGSPDCL, Suryapet, Telangana i,e. 2nd respondent herein requesting the 2nd respondent to withdraw the impugne(i demand notice dated 06.02.2025 and to drop further actiorr arising out of the said notice, explaining that the same is contrary to the orders of Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and also the order of the Apex Court dated 10.09.2024 passed in Central Pgwer Distlbution Co. of A.P. Ltd., (Now Southern Power Distribution omDanv Limited of Telanqana) and Another Versus Union of India & Others in Soecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diarv No. 25649/2(J24 and therefore the 2nd respondent may be i .-_[ : I i I I I I I I i { I I 1 I I 5 w? 5096 202J directed to consider the said reply/representation dated

72.02.2025 made by the petitioner in pursuance to the demand notice issued to the petitioner for payment of Cross subsidy Surcharge for the Financial year 2005-06 to 2014-15, within a reasonable period in accordance to law.

6. Takino into conside ration : (a) The facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the tearned Senior Designated Counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) The impugned demand notice dated

06.o2.2025, (d) The orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated L9.L2.2O23 passed in W.p. No.

1491.A/2006 and batch and also the order of the Apex Court dated LO.O9.2O24 passed in SLp No.25649 of 2O24 of the second respondent herein, (e) The contents of the petitioner,s representation dated L2.O2.2O25 made in pursuance to I I I I I I 6 wP 5098 2025 a impugned demand notice dated 06.02.2()25 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated L2.O2.2O25 made by the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 06.O2.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent in accordance to law, in cronformity with pranciples of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (2) vveeks from the date of receipt of the order. Till the above exercise is initiated and concluded by passing of appropriate orders by the 2nd respondent duly considering the detailed representation dated L2.O2.2O25 tiled by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent against the impugned demand notice dated

06.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent within the stapulated time period as indicated as above, as per the specific directions as indicated as above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps including that of 7 wP 509E 2025 disconnection of power supply pertaining to the impugned demand notice vide Lr.No. SE/OPISPRT/s,AO/JAO/HT/D.No. 24L12024, dated 06.02-2025 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ petition shall alpo stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR ASS CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman and Managing Director Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Mint Compound, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad. 2. Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TGSPDCL, Suryapet, Telangana 3. One CC to SRl. MANNAM SRIDHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TSSPDCL IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies KKS s l l I : l , ,r" t CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.5098 of 2025 --j==:-'- I'dtr J {at, t ( Pz .') -i- 0 5 I'rAfr :i[25 + D !.!p4iCi >::--:i-.--- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @--k