The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ADINARYANA, SR. COUNSEL REp. SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY counsel for the Respondents: sRr N. SREEDHAR REDDY, sc FoR TsspDcL The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.s L2t OF 2fJ25 ORDER: Heard Sri Adinarayana, learned Senior Designated . Counsel representing Sri Deepak Chowdary, learned counse!, appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsels for TSSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner approached this Coutt 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 2014-15 Lr.No.SE/OPlCClHYD/SAO/AAO(HT)/lAo (H.T)/D.No. 7077 /2025, dated 3tlOL/2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent purported to be based on the Tariff Order dated 3OlO8/2024 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determirli.ng the CSS for FY 2005-06 to 2014-15 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Judgment dated 2 \I'P 5l2l 2025 L9/721t2023 of this Honourable Court in W.P. t\,lo. 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) (S) 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 sLipply with a contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 2BO KVA AT 11 KV vide HT Service Connection No.HCD_440. The petitioner ccrmpany was purchasing power from the generator M/s. Sudha Agro Oil and Chemical Industries Ltd., for an uninterrupted power supply. However, the petitioner,s generator was granted permission by State Government of Andhra Pradr:sh 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 r:ntitled to exemption from the payment of,Cross Subsidy Sur,:harge (CSS). Following the issuance of the Common Order by the learned TGERC, the 2nd respondent ( I J wP 5 r2l 2025 5Nl issued a demand notice vide Lr.No. SE/OPICC/HYDI SAO/ AAO(HT)JAO(H.T)/D.No.7077/ 202s, dated 31.01.2025. The demand notice sought payment of Rs.63,55,472/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two only) as CSS for the year FY 2005-06 to FY 2OL4-15 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 impugrled 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 flling the present writ petition, after representing to the 2nd respondent on 13.02.2025.

4. The learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned demand notice vide Lr.No. SE/OP/CC/HYDISAO/AAO(HT)IAO (H.T)/D.No.7077/ 2025, dated 31.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the order of Division Bench of this 4 .vp 5 r2l 2o): Court dated t9.12.2023 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 10.0g.2024 passed in Central Pow rD istri bu o. of P.L N w ou ern P we Distrib utionCo MDanv Lim ited ofTela nqa na) and A oth rV r & others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25649/2024 and therefore the petitioner herein is entifled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. to of n s

5. Learrred Standing Counsel for TGSpDC)L appe,3ring on behalf of rr:spondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that as borne on record, the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice daterl 3I.Ol.2O2S had made a detailed representation dated 13.0I1.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Ctentral Circle, TGSpDCL, Chandra vihar Complex, 6th floor, MG Road, Hyderabad, Telangana, i,e. 2nd respondent herein requesting the 2nd respondent to withdraw the impugned demand notice dated 31.01.2025 and to drop further actic,n arising out of the said notice, explaining that the same rs contrary to the orders of Division Bench of this Court passe(i in W.p. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and also I 5 w'? 5t2l 2025 theorderoftheApexCourtdated10.0g'2024passedin r P w r w T lan ana)andAn other Versus Unionof India & Others 25 649 t20 4 and therefore the 2nd respondent may be P directedtoconsiderthesaidreply/representationdated L3.02.2025 made by the petitioner in pursuance to the demandnoticeissuedtothepetitionerforpaymentofCross subsidy Surcharge for the Financial Year 2005-06 to 2014-15' within a reasonable period in accordance to law' 6 nsiderati n Takinointo (a) The facts and circumstances of the case' (b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appealing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of resPondents, (c) The impugned demand notice dated

31.oL.202s, (d) The orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1rg'1.2'2L23 passed in W'P' No' 6 wP_5121 2025 '... l49lA/2006 and batch and also the order of the Apex court dated ro.og.2o.24 passed in slp No.25649 0f 2024 of the respondent No.2 herein, (e) The contents of the petitioner,s representation dated il3.O2.z(J[|made in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 31.O1.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 13-02-2025 made by the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 31.01.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in accordance to !aw, in conformity with principres of naturar 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. Till the above exercise is initiated and concluded by passing of appropriate orders by the 2.d respondent duly considering the detailed representation dated L3.O2.2O25 fited by the petitioner before the Znd respondent against the impugned demand notice dated -L 7 wP 5l2l 2025

31.01.2025 issued to the petitioner by 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. sEl oP lcctHYD/ SAo/AAo(HT)/JAO (H.T)/D.No.7077 120.25, dated 31'OL'2O25'ssued 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 sha-ll :Lt9 =!gl9 SD/.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI ANT REGISTRAR AS c&ged. S /ffRUE COPY// ECTION OFFlCE To, 1 2 The Chairman and Managing Director' Telanglrna State Southem Power Distribution Company r-irii"'o-"6Irlisb' illinido'pound' Secretariat Road' EIXSI?,?3nd'* Engineer, operation central circle' r-GSPDCL' Chandra Vihar Ei=EritHl[,sl$:fi,-ft.ffiiry?rsxiq""tsBtlropuc 3 4 5 Two CD CoPies BN i HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.S121 of 2025 , I CC TODAY + < \'\E PIA rq o( 1/ fiAn 20fr ,t ) '.) . .i'+\.'{: -'..^,,(: * .\ 1$ f DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,d?{ \hL