High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Compan 1-1 50. Mint Compound. Secretariat Road. Hyderabad, Chairman and Managing Director. Limited, Regd. Off- 6- elangana Rep. by its v T

2. Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TGSPDCL, Saroornagar Circle Hyderabad. Telangana ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS

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 2005-06 to 2014-15 vide Lr.No. SE/OP/SRNR/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.519, Dt.27.01.2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent, purported to be based on the Tariff Order dt. 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'Judgment dt. 19.12.2023 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 14918 of 2006 and batch, provisions of the Electricity Act. 2003, besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same 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 Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply to the petitioner vide HT Service Connection No. SRN-866, pursuant to the demand notice vide Lr.No. SE/OP/SRNR/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.519, Dt. 27.01 .2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MANNAM SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER I I I HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.554O ot 2025 ORDER Heard Sri Mannam Sridhar. learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aoproached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to pass an order or orders or writ or dlrection 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/OPlSRNR/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.519, Dt.27.01.2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent, purported to be based on the Tariff Order dt.30.08.2024 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for FY 2OO5-06 to 2014-15, as arbitrary, illegal, contfdry to the Judgment dt.19.12.2023 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.14918 of 2006 & batch, provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, besides being violative of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article \4, ,2 wP_5640_srlii 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest ofjustice."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner company is engaged in the hospitality and hotel industry and avails HT power from the respondent No.1 vide HT Service connection No.SRN-866. The petitioner was granted permission by the State Government of Andhra pradesh under Section 43(AX1)(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for electricity supply through generator M/s.Sudha Agro Oil and Chemicals Industries Limited. Consequently, consumers of this generator are entitled for exemption from the payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) under the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005. The Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) determined the CSS for Fy 2005-06 to 2014-15 vide its order dated 30.08.2024. Though the petitioner is entitled for exemption from CSS under the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005, the respondent No.2 issued a demand notice dated 27.0t.2025 to the petitioner, demanding the payment of Rs.3,85,02,564l- I I I \ J SN, J \,tP 5640 202s towards CSS for the period FY 2005-06 to FY 2014-15, which is contrary to the judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2023 in W.P. No. 14918 of 2006 and Batch.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted detailed representation dated 14.02.2025 to the respondent No.2 herein explaining the reasons for contending that the petitioner is not entitled to pay the cross subsidy surcharge amount of Rs.3,85,02,564/-, however, the same had not been considered by the respondent No.2 and the respondents are insisting the petitioner for payment of the cross subsidy surcharge amount of Rs.3,85,02,564/- as indicated in the impugned notice dated 27.O1.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the representation of the peiitioner dated 14.O2.2025, which had been acknowledged by the office of the respondent No.2 herein in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 4 SN, J wP 5640 2025

6. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSpDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitloner.

7. Takin into conside ration: a) The facts and circumstances of the case , b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents and, c) The contents of the representation of the petitioner dated L4,o2.2O25 addressed to the respondent No.2 herein which had been acknowledged by the office of the respondent No.2 herein, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner's representation dated 14.02.2O25 submitted by the petitioner in reply to the impugned notice dated 27.01.2O25 issued by the respondent No.2 and pass appropriate orders on the said representation within a period of three(3) weeks I ) Y I I To, -5 SN, J wP 5640 2025 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice by giving notice to the petitioner and providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till the above exercise is initiated and concluded by the respondent No.2 herein as per the directions as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated as above, respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner herein in pursuance to the impugned notice dated 27.O1.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 herein. However, there shaI no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.v.s .PRASAD REGISTRAR ASSI STA ,/TRUE COPY'I ION OFFICER '$:':':[?r'#s;tr#jd;.:]S"t'gl"J*::"':-B?H\1?r.::** , lH,:,ffi uEBx'3*'"*'[# "'*;''" "'':':^::' 3. One CC to SRI MANNAM SRIDHAR Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to SRI U SnEeOHnn *'OO" SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUCI o "'' sa roo rn asar Two CD CoPies ( KKS PSK HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 (.C TODAY ORDER WP.No.5640 of 2025 q o 1 $E Sr4 7-G. ( t. 0 E I'IAR 2[25 , DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g 4-k 6 /J A.