Comoa nv Limited of Telanoana) and Another vs Unio n of India& Others in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Judgment

1. 2 ...PETITIONER Southern Power Distribution Com.pany of Telangana Limited, Corporate office. 6-1-50. Mint comoouno, n!oeiaoailf;t:;;; s00 063. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing' Drrector The Superintendino Enoineer, Operation Circle, Cybercity, TGSpDCL, Nanal Nasar X noaos, R6tntb5wri, HydiirabJ-, r"iJiri.-.i"'

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot the 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 particurarry 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/cBC/sAoiJAo/HT-r/D.No.620, dt.zg.o1 .2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent, purported to be based on the Tariff order dt.30.0g.2024 issued by the Terangana Erectricity Reguratory commission determining the css for FY 2005-06-2014-i5, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Judgment dt.19.12.2023 of this Hon'bte Court in W.P.No.1491B of 2006 and batch, provisions of the Erectricity Act, 2003, besides being viorative of the petitioner s rights guaranteed under Article 1 4, 19(i Xg) of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. IA NO | 10F 2025 Petitionunderlsectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take any coercive steps including that of direct the ResPondents not to pursuant to the demand notice vide Lr'N o' disconnection of Power suPPlY No.620, dt.29.O'1 .2025 issued by the 2nd SE/OP/CB C/SAO/JAO/HT-I/D. Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANNAM SRIDHAR Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N' SREEDHA REDDY' SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.5115 oF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Adinarayana, learned Senior Designated . Counsel representing Sri Mannam Sridhar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsels for TSSPDCL appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer: " .... . to pass an order or orders or writ or direction more pafticularly 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 2014-15 vide Lr.No.SE/OPICBC/SAO/JAO/HT-t/D.No.620, dated 29/0l/2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent purported to be based on the Tariff Order dated 30/OB|2O24 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for FY 2005-06 to 2014-75 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the ludgment dated 191t2/2023 of this 2 wP 5tt5 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 engaged 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 sdpply with a contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 500 KVA with HT Service Connection No.CBC-704 for an uninterrupted power supplv, the petitioner company was purchasing power from the generator M/s. Tirumala Cotton & Agro Produr:ts Pvt. Limited. However, the petitioner's generator was granted permission by State Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 43 i(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 demand notice 1 \ \ i i . 3 wP 5l t5 2025 ' SN, vide Lr.No. SE/OPICBC/SAO/JAOIHT-UD.No.620, dated

29.0L.2025. The demand notice sought payment of Rs.54,46,797.Q0 (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Seven 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 dated t9.t2.2023. Aggrieved by the said demand notice dated 29.01.2025, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.02.2025 to the 2nd respondent, requesting the respondent to withdraw the said impugned notice. However, the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the respondents, the present wiit petition is filed.

4. The learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned demand \ 4 wP 5l 15 2025 notice vide Lr.No. SE/OP/CBC/SAO/JAO/HT- I/D.No.620, dated 29.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the order of Division Bench of this Court dated

19.72.2023 passed in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and W.P. No. 8,252 of 2008 and also the order of the Apex Court dated 10.09.2024 passed in Central Power Distribution Co L N w P w Comoa nv Limited of Telanoana) and Another Versus Unio n 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 TGSpDCI_ appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that as borne on record, the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 29.0t.2025 had made a detailed representation dated 07.02.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Cybercity, TGSpDCL, Nanalnagar ..X., Roads, Rethibowli, 'felangana, i.e. 2nd respondent herein requesting the 2nd respondent to withdravr the impugned demand notice dated 29.01.2025 and to drop further action arising out of the said notice, explaining that the same is contrary to the I I 1 :i 1 5 w? 5r l5 2025 orders of Division Bench of this Court passed in W.p. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and also the order of the Apex in Central Power Court dated 10.09.2024 passed P.L N w w Distri bution Co Danv Limited of Telanoana) and Ano er Versu s Union of India & thers in S Leave Petition (Civil) Diarv No. 25649 12024 and therefore the 2nd. respondent may be directed to consider the said replylrepresentation dated 07.02.2025 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. Takin tnto consad 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

29.OL.2(J25, 6 v/P 5l 15 2025 (d) The orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated L9.12.2O23 passed in w.P. No. L49I-A|2OOG and batch and also the order of the Apex Court dated LO.O9.2O24 passed in SLP No.25649 of 2024 ol the respondent No.2 herein, (e) The contents of the petitioner's representation dated 07.O2.2O25 made in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 29.01.2O25 issued to the petationer by the 2nd respondent herein, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representataon dated

07.O2.2O25 made by the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 29.01.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of persona! hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (2) weeks 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 7 wP 5l 15 2025 O7.O2.2O25 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent against the impugned demand notice dated

29.OL.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 coercave steps including that of disconnection of power supply pertaining to the impugned demand notice vide Lr.No. SEIOPICB,C/ SAO/JAO/HT-[/D.No. 62O, dated 29.01.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 2d respondent herein. There shal! be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. SD/-S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO NT REGISTRAR ASSIS //TRUE COPY// \ To, CTION OFF]CER 1. The chairman and Managing Dire_ctor, Southern power Distribution company of Telangana Limited, Coiporate Offici:. 6_.t_50, Mint C;r-p;;;J; HiA"ir'tiio, Telangana 500 063. 2. The Suoerintendino !19ineer, operation circre, cybercity, TGSpDCL, Nanar - !aga1 X RoaOs, R6thiU5wti, Fiydbrabad. retanduna 3. One CC to Sri Mannam Sridhlr, Advo6ate fOFUCt 4. One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, SC tor fSSpbCi tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies T J /BSK a I , HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.S115 of 2025 1 E S rAr€ C. C( t:Ji. a r: t., \ 1? tlLfl ?t?5 6r + -.'l,,,-:,- \i-;._t- =--;'' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS