The High Court · 2025

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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature oi writ of Mandamus and set aside the orders in oP. No. 10 0f 201 7 dated- 17lO7l2O1B and the orders in the Review Petitirjn bearing lA. (sR). No. 7 of 2020 in R.p. (SR) No. iS+ of 2018 in OP. No. 10 of 2017 daled 25lO1l2O2'1 as illegal, unjust, non est in law, and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Reforms Act . 1998, Electricity Act 2003 and the Regulation 2 of 2015 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cott suspend the operation the orders of the 1st respondent r dafed- 1710712018 and the orders in the Review Petition bee 2O2O'inR.P.(SR) No. 134of 2018inOP.No. 10of 2017dz cumstances stated in t may be pleased to OP. No. 10 of 2017 'ing lA. (SR) No 7 of ed 2510112O21 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. VINOD REDDY(SC FOF -STRANSCO) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI J ASHVINI KUMAII SC FOR TSERC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI C. GUNARANJAT\ The Court made the following: ORDER a -) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI"ANGANA AT TTYDERABN) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 6504 OF 2O2l

12.L2.2025 Between: Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep. by its Chief General Manager (Revenue) .. Petitioner And Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Chairman & another. ORDER: Responden ts This Writ Petition was filed by TGSPDCL impugning the order in O.P. No. lO of 2Ol7 dated 17 .O7 .2018 and the order in Review Petition IA SR No. 7 of 2O2O in RP (SR) No. 134 of 2018 in O.P.No. lO of 2Ol7 dated 25. 1.2O21 on the file of the lst respondent - Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the CommissionJ.

2. The 2"a Respondent - Aryhama Solar Power filed the above-said O.P. before the Commission seeking a direction to peLitioner to implement the provisions of Regulation 2 of 2006, as amended from time to time and not to lery Time Of 2 Day (TOD) charges. The Commission, after hearin i: the parties, including petitioner, disposed of the said O P. by its order dated

17.O7.2018 directing Petitioner herein not to leq- T., ).D. charges to the extenl of energr supplied by the O.A. Ger r rator in the specihed time blocks on ttre basis of Settleme r Statement determined in accordance with Regulation 2 of 006 during TOD timings and correct the billing as per the prcr sions of the Regulation No. 2 of 2006 (as amended).

2.1 . Aggrieved thereby, it is stated, Pt I tioner filed Review before the Commission uide RPSR No. 132 rf 2018 and IASR No. 2 of 2O2O for condoning the delay in filin: Review. The Commission, by its Order dated 25.01.2O21, dismi; ,cd IASR No. 7 of 2O2O and also RPSR No. 134 of 2018 on thc ground that there is no power to condone the delay beyond tl r prescribed period of thirty days over and above seventy hve 11 tys from the date of the order as provided under Proviso to CLr rse 32 (l) of Regulation 2 of 2Ol5 (Conduct of Business Regulali rns). 3. This Court, by order dated 17.0t . )02 1, while issuing notice before admission, granted interim ; rspension of the impugned order.

4. ln the counter filed on behalf of the 3,. respondent, it is stated, they have set up a MW solar p<. r t:r plant at 3 Kolanapaka Village, AIer Mandal in Yadadri District and they entered into a long-terrn open access agreement (LTOA) with respondent on 2O.O2.2O74 for availing open access faciliqr for wheeling of energ, generated from its plant to its consumer i.e. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Private Limited. [t is stated, against thb order of Respondent - Commission, an Appeal lies under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 to APIEL and again further Appeal provided to the Honble Supreme Court under Section 125 of the Act. As there is an effective alternative remedy available, this Court should not entertain Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution until and unless there is a specifrc violation of principles of natural justice, fundamental rights or non-compliance of statutory requirements in any martner.

5. l,earned Stalding Counsel for petitioner Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy raised several issues including that there was no quorLrm for the Commission to pass the order and that there should be a minimum of two members and the order in the main O.P. was passed by only a single Member, therefore the order in OP No. LO of 2Ol7 along with the order passed in Review Petition are liable to be set aside. J 4

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2,,i Respondent argued that as per the business rules of the C I nmission, a single Member is empowered to discharge and the 'e[ore, there was no illegality or irregularity in the said orde. and further canvassed that in any event, this Court, in e;r rcise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution cannr t go into the said issues in view of an efhcacious alternative renr dv :rvailable to petitioner under Section 111 of the Act. 7 . lt is pertinent to note that this Cc ,rrt in Writ Petition No. 12304 of 2024 and batch, by rrder dated

31.07.2025, has taken a view that when there is a statutory alternative rr:medy available under Section 1 1 1 of . he Act, Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitut on is not maintainable, by relying upon the judgments oi Lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fl\C Ind.ta Linited a. CERCI, {ssociction of Industrlal Electricitg llsers u. Staie of Andh, a prod.esh2 and Keralrr State Electricitg Board a. Jha rua pouer Liniteds relegating the parties to invoke t t- : appellate jurisdiction under Section 111 of Electricity Act. {s such no exception can be granted to petitioner. 'zoto 1+; scc ()o3 ' 2oobt1) scc 7 I 1 '1ZOZ+1 StC Or-rline SC 2819 5

8. Therefore, this Court, without going into merits of the matter, directs petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunai under Section I I I of the Electricity Act, 2OO3. The Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. 9. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT R'GISTRAR secrrffirrrcen To,

1. One C 2. One C 3. One C 4. Two C C to SRl. R VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO) IOPUCI C to SRt. J ASHV|N| KUMAR(SC FoR ISERC)-ibEu'il C to SRl. C. cUNARANJAN, Advocate tOpUCi ' - - D Copies BM BSM I a HIGH COURT DATED:1 211212025 ORDER WP.No.6504 o12021 .I s s\ \ 0( ll- \t\ .1:a\ .9''.'i . {i,,.)' i.t I tl l,+ .':- i :;i'_r'-' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITI.I ]UT COSTS a \v