Now Sou er th nP ower Distribution Comoanv Limited of Tel anoana) and Another v. Union of India Others in S pecial Leave Petition

Judgment

1. 2 ...PETITIONER Southem Power Distribution, Company of Telangana Limited, Corporate office. 6-1_50, Mint comnouhgr_nio,;il,u"ri, it;";;;"; _ 500 063. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing' Drrector El?,.::fl :+l}l,",i:ll,nr'*'Jffi s:,3f#:+:[3J';' j,?Secunderabad,rGSpDcL,

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or writ or direction more particularry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of Respondents in issuing demands for payment of cross Subsidy Surcharge ( css ) for the Fy 2005-06 to 2014-15 vide Lr.No. SE/op/Secbad/sAo/JAO(HT)tD.No.54112025, dt. 0310212025, issued by the 2nd Respondent, purported to be based on the Tariff order dt' 3010812024 issued by the Terangana Erectricity Reguratory commission determining the cSS for Fy 2005-06 to 2014-15, as arbitrary, iilegar, contrary to the Judgment dt- 19t12r2023 of thrs Honourabre court in w.p.No. 14918 of 2006 and batch, provisions of the Erectricity Act, 2003, besides being viorative of the petitioner s rights guaranteed under Articre 1a, 19(rxg) of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same. !rr lA 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 Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply pursuant to the demand notice vide Lr'No SE/OP/ dl. 03.02.2025 issued bY the 2nd Secbad/SAO/JAO (HT)/D No'54112025' Respondent. cou n se r f or the Petitio"" r' t **?,$fH,lliirtilSi$""'' Counsel for Respondents: SRI N'SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P ON No.512O oF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Adlnarayana. learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Deepak Chowdary, tearned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsets for TSSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2.

2. The petitaoner 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 issuinE demands for payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for the FY 2005-06 to 2014-15 vide Lr. No. SE/OPlSecbad/SAO/JAO( HT)/D. No. 54 1, dated 03/0212025 issued by the 2nd Respondent purported to be based on the Tariff Order dated 3O/OB/2024 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for FY 2005-06 to 2014-15 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Judgment dated L9/12/2023 oF this 2 wP 5120 2025 Honourable Court in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch, provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, besides being violative of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass...".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner company is r:ngaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. The petitioner had entered into a High Tension (HT) Agreement with the 1't respondent for power supply with a contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 400 KVA with HT Service Connection No.SEC-510. The petitioner company was purchasing power from the generator M/s. NATL Power Limited for an uninterrupted power supply. However, the petitioner's generator was granted permission by State Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 43 (1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and is squarely covered under the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to exemption from the payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS). Following the issuance of the Common Order by the learned TGERC, the 2nd respondent issued a ciemand notice vide Lr.No. ,:'1 { 3 wP 5t20 202s SE/OPlSecbad/SAO/jAO(HT)/D.No.54l 2025, 03.02.2025. The demand notice sought payment of Rs.|,73,46,422/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) as CSS for the year Fy 2005-06 to Fy 2Ot4-L5 with a ctear 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 ot the orders passed by this Court in W.p. No. 1491g of 2006 and batch and hence liable to be set aside. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition, after representing to the 2nd respondent on 1,0.O2.2025.

4. The learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned demand notice vide Lr.No. SE/OplSecbad/SAO/lAO(HT)/D.No.541/ 2025, dated 03.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is \ 4 wP 5120 2025 contrary to the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 19. L2.2023 passed in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and \M.P. No. 8252 of 2008 and also the order of the Apex Court dated 10.09.2024 passed in Central Power Distribution o. of A.P. Ltd., (Now Sou er th nP ower Distribution Comoanv Limited of Tel anoana) and Another Versus Union of India & Others in S pecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25649/2024 and therefore the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief as prayed folin the present writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of rerspondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that as borne on record, the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned ,lemand notice dated 03.02.2025 had macie a detailed representation dated 10.021.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle Secunderabad, TGSPDCL, Gurr Rock Tirumalgiri, Secunderabad, Telangana, i.e. 2nd respondent herein requesting the 2nd respondent to withdraw the impugned demand notice dated 03.02.202!; and to drop further action arising out of the said notice, explaining that the same is contrary to the orders of Divisio. Bench of this i 5 wP 5120 2025 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 Pow r Distrib ution Co. of A.P. Ltd., (Now Southern Power Distribu tion Com nv Limit dof Telanqana) and Another Versus Union of fndia & Others inS oecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diarv No. 25649 12024 and therefore the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the said replylrepresentation dated 70.02.2025 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 2OI4-LS, within a reasonable period in accordance to law.

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

03.02.2025, l l I I I I I I t. 6 wP 5120 2025 (d) The orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated L9.L2.2O23 passed in W.P' No. t49LAl2OO6 and batch and also the order of the Apex Court dated LO.O9.2O24 passed in SLP No.25649 of 2024 ot the respondent No.2 herein, (e) The contents of the petitioner's representation dated 1O.O2.2025 made in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated O3.O2.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 10.02.2025 made by the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated O3.O2.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in accordance to taw, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Titl the above exercise is initiated and concluded by passing of appropriate orders by the 2nd respondent duly considering the detailed representation dated 7 wP 5120 2025 1O.O2.2O25 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent against the impugned demand notice dated O3.O2.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 within the stipulated time period as indicated above, as per the specific directions as indicated above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply pertaining to the impugned demand notice vide Lr.No. SE/OPlSecbadl SAOIJAO(HT)/D.No.s4r/2O2.s, dated O3.O2.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 2"d respondent herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR S N OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution, Company of Telangana Limited, Corporate Office. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063.

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Secunderabad, TGSPDCL, Gunrock, Tirumalgiri Secunderabad, Telangana

3. One CC to SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY, Advocate. IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TRANSCO. [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. tfl.a BSx (tl/ ."1 .*+'E:--.. I CC TODAY 1Y\ E SIAT€ <)-,'( J l) 17 l4ll1 i',i?s o -k t:i: l,; .:t..-. HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.S120 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS