M/s. Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited v. Southern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited TSSPDCL

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 201 4-1 5 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/CC/HYD/SAO/AAO(HTyJAO(H'T)lD.No.7 077 12025 dated 31tO1t2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent, purported to be based on the Tariff Order dated 30/08/2024 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regu- Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for FY 2005-06 to 201 4-15. as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Judgment dated 1911212023 of this 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 Article 14. 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. -fF -,- r, |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fili.'d in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondernts not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of porrver supply pursuant to the demand notice vide Lr.No.SE /oP/cc/HYD/sAo/AAo(HTyJAo(H.T)/D.No .7077 tzo2s dated 31 /01 i2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S ]NDUS LAW FIRM Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER l r'1{ ," HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA wRIT PETITION No.5908 0F 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: " ...to issue 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 yrde Lr. No. S E / OP / CCl HY D/SAO/AAo ( HT) D AO U.r) / D.No.7077/25 dt. 31.01.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent purported to be based on tlre Tariff Order dated 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 dated 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 petitioner's rights guaranteed under n -{T I,c J;. -. j& I 2 wP_:;908 2025 Article 14 i9(1Xg) of the Constitution of and consequently set aside the same pass.-.". India

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is providing hospitality services in Hyderabad and has obtained High Tension power supply connection from the Telangana Electricity tlegulatory Commission. The petitioner crlmpany had entered into an HT agreement with a contracted m'lximum demand of 210 KVA/HP and it is having power through open access to its unit with service connection bearing No. HTSC No.GDC030 under the name of M/s. P. Prabhaker Reddy. It is further the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order by the TGERC, the znd respondent had raised a demand notice dated 3l.t)1.2025 demanding to pay an amount of Rs.1,02,43,033/- and the petitioner is; entitled to the benefit of the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second order, 2005 and no CSS can be levied on it for FY 2005-06 to 2014-15. Hence the petitioner approached the Couft by filing the present writ petition. t , i.:,.- )1 .:. . 3 wP_5908 2025

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2025 had been acknowledged by the office of the 2't, respondent herein on 22.02.2025 itself but no action is initiated on [he said representatioi.r of the petitioner dated

22.02.2025 as on date.

5. Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the writ petition could be disposed of clirecting the 2"d respontlent to consader the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petition er vide representation dated 22.02.2025 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein in pursuance to the demand notice dated 31.O1.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, in accordance to law within a reasonable period.

6. Takino into nsideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and e. '-, I 4 w? 5908 2025 f t'i learned Standing Counset appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2, (c) The fact as borne on record that no orders had been passed on petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2C.25 issued to the 2nd respondent herein in pursuance to the impugned demand vide letter dated

31.01.2025 issued to the petitioner herein by the 2nd respondent, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner's detailed representation dated 22.O2.2O25 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein in response to the impugned demand notice dated 31.O1.2O25 issued to the petitioner herein by the 2nd respondent duly considering al! the objections of the petitioner as put forth vide the said representation dated 22.02.2C.25 of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent herein in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by giving reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, L. i ,1 5 wP 5908 2025 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the above exercise is initiated by the 2"d respondent herein and appropriate orders are passed by the 2nd respondent duly consadering the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner vide petitioner's representation dated l2Z.OZ.2Ol2Sas per the directions as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated as above, the respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 31.01.2O2S issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. However, 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/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY T REGISTRAR AS S S CTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Southem Distribution Company of Telangana Limited TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, Central Secretariat Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO O22.

2. The Superinten'ding Engineer, TGSPDCL, operation Central Circle, Chandra Vihar Complex, 6th Floor M.G.Road, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to M/s INDUS LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI N.SREEEHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies SA BS q: f To .: r' n C .C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER *" 'j WP.No.5908 of 2025 6 iTAfa 18 l;i[?, ?$6 ( .i. o _z DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. / 4z /t 5 t9 {