High Court · 2025

Vidvut Ombudsman, for the State of Telangana, I Floor, 33/ l 1 KV Sub Staiion, Hyderabad Boats Ctub Lane, Lumbini Park, Hyderabad Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Greater Hyderabad Area, TGSPDCL, GTS Colony, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad Represented by its Chair Person M/s Sri Sai Ram lce Factory, represented By D.Deepak Kumar Gupta, PIot No. 27 (P) Pasumamula, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, to call for the records pertaining to the Award daled 29j2025 passed in Appeal No. 42 ot 2024-25 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same by declaring it to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, Tariff order issued by Honbre T.G.E. - c. ano the Generar Terms and Conditions of Supply, Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt N.SREEDHAR REDDY ( SC :OR TGSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms.NISHITHA (ADVOC/\ .E) Counsel for the Respondent No 1 &2: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER I ,1 o \ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A VrRIT PETITION No. 5970 OF 2O2S ORDER: This writ Petition is filed questioning the Award dated 29.01.2O25 in Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25 on the file of the l"t respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) and to set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 20O3, the Retail Supply Tariff Orders issued by the Telangana State Electricit-v Regulatory Commission and General Terms and Conditions of Supply.

2. The case of petitioners is that the 3'd respondent- consumer has a service connection bearing No. 562500810 under LT-III (lndustrial) category with a contracted load of 99 HP. During March and J:une 2O2O, the consumer exceeded the contracted Ioad by utilising 100.06 HP and 104.90 HP respectively. [n accordance with ClauSe 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS), any service recording demand above 75 KVA attracts HT-l (1 I KV) tariff. Accordingly, billing under HT-I category and posting of HT flag were made lawfully and in conformity with the applicable tariff provisions. It is stated that Consumer Grievance Redressal Fomm (CGRF), Greater Hyderabad Area, after examining the consumer's 2 Y-\l ' ..r - complaints in CG Nos. 27 and 38 of 2O2O-21, by order dated

30.O9.2O2O, dismissed the same holding that billi:r 1 under HT-I (1 1 KV) lndustrial category was in strict accordrr rce rvith the provisions of the Retail Supply Tarifl Order and rr: GTCS. The Forum observed that recorded demand having :xceeded 75 KVA, billing under HT tariff was justified and rr rt consumer could not seck to be billed under LT-III category.

2.1. Aggrieved by the CGRF order, consur rcr preferred Appeal No. 17 of 2O2O-21 before the Ho..'ble Vidyrrt Ombudsman, Telangana State, which was allor,,, cl by Au'ard dated 15.01.202 1. Petitioners challenged the said \ward before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9257 of 2O2t. 'I1 is Court, by common order dated IO.12.2O24, set aside the I ward on the ground that it had been passed by a person not qrLr lified to hold the post of Ombudsman as per Regulation 3.6 oi t re Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consurr :r Grievance Redressal Forum, Vidyrrt Ombudsman an( Electrrcity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2015. Subsequ ntly, after appointment of a qualified Ombudsman, the cor sumer again filed Appeat No. 42 ot 2024-25. The Ombuc1r; -ran, by the impugned Award dated 29.O7.2025, directed l etitioners to remove the HT flag, revise the electricity bills for t I : period from Aprll 2O2O I o September 2O23 restricting HT billir q only to the J -t portion of demand recorded above 75 KVA, and to refund the balance amount with interest at 9o/o per annum. Petitioners state that the Ombudsman gravely erred

2.2. in interpreting Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS. It is contended that the language of Clause 7.5.3 clearly mandates that once the recorded demand exceeds 75 KVA, the entire consumption from that month onwards shall be biiled under HT-l (1 1 KV) tariff until the unauthorized load is removed and ce rtified by the competent authority. The clause does not permit partial billing conhned to the excess demand alone. It is further contended that Clause

12.3.3.3 of the GTCS stipulates that where the connected load exceeds 75 HP (subsequently revised to 1O0 HP), service shall be bi1led under HT-1 (11 KV) category for the entire period until the excess load is rectihed. It is argued that these provisions are intended to ensure load regulatiori, safet5r of network infrastructure and system stability, therefore, cannot be diluted or interPreted selectivelY. Petitioners assert that the Ombudsman's

2.3. interpretation effectively rewrites the Tariff clause by restricting the HT billing to the portion exceeding 75 KVA, contrary to the express wording of the provision. It is further stated that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to direct refund of collected n:-ii 4 -- \'*1 t...'/ amounts and award interest at 9o/o per annum, as ;uch relief is beyond the scope of the Regulations. It is arguecl thar CGRF's decision was based on a correct interpretation ti the Tariff Order and the GTCS, and there was no ground for irterference.

3. The 3.d respondent-consumer filc,l a counter affrdavit contending that impugned Award of the C,r rbudsman is legal, valid and based on correct appreciati<.rrr r[ facts and applicable tariff provisions. The consumer admits hat recorded demald marginally exceeded 75 KVA during a [e'i months due to operational variations but maintains that su<-t occasi<;nal excess cannot justify conversion of the entire i)t ling to IIT-I category. Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tarill efers only to "recorded dcmand" and not to "connected load.' I herefore, the HT tariff, at the most, applies only to the recorde I demand in excess of 75 KVA for the relevant billing months I rd not to the entire consumption. It is further contended that C_- I use 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS deals with cases where the r:o; nected Ioad physically exceeds 75 HP, which is not applicablc 1r the present case, as the consumer's connected load remainecl rl_ 99 Hp and did not exceed the revised limit of 1OO Hp.

3.1. The consumer states that the Ombr c sman rightly harmonized both the clauses and concluded t rat only the recorded dernand over 75 KVA should attract HT re rff, r,r,hile the 5 rest of the consumption continues under LT-lll category. It is argued that this approach ensures fairness and consistency with the wording of the Tariff Order. The direction for refund with interest was issued as a logical consequence of wrongful excess billing. The Ombudsman, being a statutory Appellate Authority, has the power to grant consequential relief, including refund of excess amounts collected. It is therefore, prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of merit. 4 . Heard Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of petitioners and Ms. Nishitha, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and examined the material on record. It is an admitted fact that consumer's recorded demand exceeded 75 KVA during the relevant period and the 3'd respondent posted al HT flag and raised bills under HT-1 (11 KV) Industrial category. The dispute essentially turns on the interpretation of Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS. The said Clause 7 .5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff clearly stipulates that whenever the recorded demand exceeds 75 KVA, the demand charges applicable under HT-l (11 KV) Industrial category shall apply. Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS, which operates in tandem 6 with the tariff provisions, mandates that u.h,: e the total connected load exceeds 75 HP (later revised to '0O HP), the service shall be billed under HT category until sr:h excess is removed. These provisions are designed to maintz.i r uniformity in classific:rtion and prevent overloading of l1' systerns.

6. In the present case, the records shot, lrat both the connected krad and the recorded demand excr:, ded the LT threshold. Therefore, posting of HT flag and billinE undcr HT-1 (11 KV) category was justified and in accordance '.r th the Tariff Order and GTCS. The Ombudsman's reasoning t rat only the portion exce,:ding r75 KVA should attract HT tarifl i ; conlrary lo I the express language of the clauses and amounr: to a partial reading of the regulatory scheme. This Court f-rn I ; that C(iRf correctly apltreciated the facts and law and right I , upheld the billing under HT-I category. The Ombudsman's r terpretation, which effectively dilutes the tariff condition and lirr ts HT billing only to the excess recorded demand, is unsusit rinable. The direction for refund and interest at 9oh per annun also travels beyond the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as the Ftt qulations do not confer power to order refund with interest in s -; :h cases.

7. For the reasons stated above, this Cr urt is of the considered vieu, that the Award dated 29.O1.202.5 1 arssed by the Vidy'ut Ombudsman, Telangana State in Appeal Nc 42 of 2024- 7 25suffersfromlegalinfirmity,beingcontrarytotheTariff Orders and the General Terms a-nd Conditions of Supply' The same is therefore, liable to be set aside'

8. The Writ Petition is accordingiy' allowed' The Awarddated2g.ol.2o2'passedbytheVidl'utombudsman, Telangana State in Appeal No' 42 of 2024-25 is hereby set aside' No costs. 9 closed Miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending sha11 stand Sd/-M.NAGAMANI S TANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, oor, 33/1 1 l(V Sub erabad 1 The Vidvut Ombudsman, for the State of Telangana ' sia-ti6n,'Hvalialio aoat's Club Lane, Lumbini Park' 2. The Chair Person, Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum' Greater . ' iliE#ili AiEI;'tciii'DCi, oiS Cotonv, Vensalrao Nasar' Hvderabad 3. OneCCtoSRI N.SREEDHARREDDY( SC FORTGSPDCL) [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms.NISH|THA, Advocate IOPUC} 5. Two CD CoPies. BSK HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 .,,./,', :.. t.\ |'.-. ,.:;' =_r:-, 2 ! iit 245 {-. s ., ORDER WP.No.5970 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2tlra le<--