High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Transmission Corporation of Chairman and Managing Director, State. Telangana Ltd, Represented by its Vidrit Soudha, Hyderabad, Telangana 3 4 The Southern Power Distribution Compalry of Telangana Limited, represented by its Chaiman and Managing Director, It/int Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Chief Engineer (lPC), The Southern Power DistribUtion Company of Telangana Limited, lVlint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

5. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, I\4edak District at Sangareddy, Telangana State.

6. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, I\/edak District at Sangareddy, Telangana State.

7. The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

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 ene in the nature of ...RESPONDENTS writ of Mandamus; declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheeling charges even without any generation as highly ill,:gal, arbltrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff order dated 09-05-2014 of the 7th respondent and also violative o' Articles 14, 1S(1Xs), 21, 264 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unc er section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circuntstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High court maY be pleased to suspend the operation of the Lr. No.CE(lPC)/DE':lPC)ADE-DA/F sneha/D. No.1 4 68i24, Dt.2-1-2025 of respondent No. 4 under the third party sale for the period fron 30-'l 1-2024 to 30-11-2029 party supplies t:ffected by the petitioner to its consumers viz., M/s. Santha Shina Para Boiled l\v'odern Rice I\,4ill (NLG 32), Mis. Sr liai Pavan lndustries Pvt Ltd., (NLG 755) anC l\'4ls Vaishnavi Food Products Pvi. Ltd., (NLG -754), at 11 KV under captive pLrrpose, pending disposal of the abo'.,e writ petition, in the interest of justice. a, lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition unde,r Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to amend the main p'ayer portion in W.P.No. 6347 of 2025 as "to issue a Writ, order or directiorr more particularly one in the nature of wri'. of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheelirg charges even without any gene.ation as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff order datecl 09-05-2014 ol the 7th respondent and set aside the proceedings l-r.No.CE(lPC)/DE(lPC)ADE-DA/F Sneha/D.No 1468/24' Dt.2-1-2025 being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case", instead of main prayer "to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actiorr of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheeling charges even without any generertion as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff order dated 09-05-2014 of the 7th respondent and also violative of Articles ' 14, 19(1Xg), 21 .264and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia. Counsel for the PetitioNEr: SRI M.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR ENERGY Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 to 6: SRt N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI P.PRASAD, SC FOR TSERC The Couit made the following: ORDER I{-"'*t 7 .i. '.t HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.6347 OF 2025 ORDE R: Heard Sri M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the resp()ndent Nos.2 to 6 and Sri P.Prasad, learned standing counsel for TSERC appearing on behalf of the respondent No'7.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: *......1-c issue a Writ, Order or direction more trarticularly one ir the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheeling charges even urithout any generation as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff Order dated 09-05- 2Ol4 of the 7th respondent and also violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g), 21, 264 and 300-4 oF the Constitution of India a rd pass.... "

3. It is s;pecific case of the petitioner that ihe respondent No.4 is le'/ying the wheeling charges even withc,ut any generation and the same is highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational 2 x and contrary to the Tariff Order dated 09.05.2014 of the 7rh respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present Writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner,s detailed representations, dated 2O.O2.2O25, 27.Og.2(J,,g, 05.02.2019, 25.O2.2OL9, ZO.OL.2O21" and O2.01.2O23 addressed to the respondents to exempt the Wheeling charges explaining in detail the reasons seeking the exemption of the Wheeling charges had not been considered by the Competent Authority i.e., the 4th respondent and no action had been initiated as on date, though the said representations had been acknowledged by the office of the respondents herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in respect of the similar issues pertaining to the wheeling charges, this Court in W.P.No.2716 of 2015 in W.p.M.P.No.3648 of 2O15 vide its order dated 13.02.2O15 granted stay of tevying the .i, {., ! 3 wheeling charges and the said stay orders are in force as on crate and hence, the petitioner is entifled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner irn the Writ Petition No.2716 of 2015. 6, Learned standing counsei appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on the other hand submits that the 4th respondent is competent Authority to decide the subject issue duly considering the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the petitioner,:s detailed representatio ns, dated 05.O2.2019, 25.O2.201g,

20.o2.202s,

27.O8.2018, 2O.O1.2O21 and

02..O1.2023 I addressed to the respondents herein.

7.7 kinq i nto consl eration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and iearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6. t_ . .1:8:.{'it}i8?BFY.-ixaa 4 c) The contents of the representation, dated 2O.O2.2O25I 27.O8.2OL8, 05.02.2019, 25.O2.2OL9, 2O.O1.2O21 and O2.O1.2023 addressed to the 3'd respondent herein. d) The Orders of this Court, dated 13.02.2025 passed in W.P.M.P.3648 of 2015 in W.P.No 2716 ot 2O15 which are in force as on date. e) The fact that the representations of the petitioner though acknowledged by the office of the Respondent Authority had not been considered as on date. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the petitioner's detailed representation, dated 2O.O2.2O25, 27.O8.2Ot8, 05.02.2019,

25.O2.2OL9., 2O.OL.2O2L and O2.OL.2O23 addressed to the respondents herein pertaining to petitioner's request for exemption of the Wheeling Charges in accordance to law within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Till the 4th I I I I l 5 respondent considers the said representations of the petitioner and passes appropriate orders in accordance to law wiithin the time peraod as stiputated as above, the 4th respondent is directed not to levy the wheeling charges contrary to the Tariff order, dated og.o5,2015 of the 7th respondent. However, there sha[ be n,o order as to cost$. Miscellaneous petitions, iF any, pending in tl- is Writ Petition, shal stand closed. SDi. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 2 SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretarv. Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Chairnri n and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telanga na Lto. Vidyut Soudha", H-yOeraOiO-, tef , ntrnr"strtu The chairm:rn and Manaoing Director, Southern power Distrir,ution comoanv of Tetanganer t_imited. wini c"ompouna: Hi;;;;;;. il:ansana Srate. The Chief Enqineer (lPC) The Southern power DistribUtron Company of Telangana Lirrited, Miht Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 5. The Superinle rding Engineet Operation Circle, Southern po,ver Distribution of Tetansana= Limited,' [/;A;k Di.t;i&;t Sansarerrdy retangana 4 \) SgHr", i i t \ To

6. The Senior r\ccounts ?ily,i?:'lT.!'r:mpanv . Officer. Operation Circle. The Sr,uthern power of retansani-iimii"o, ['r"ijrr, oi.tn.i)ii's!'rbr,.#;: Erectricitv Res uratory comm is sion, S insa ren i ' J[:;::'fi :T'i l3'il,%?3 ;t5te 8. One CC to SFil tV.VtSHNU VARDHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpL Cl 9. One CC to SFlr N SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUC] 10. One CC to SFlt P.PRASAD, SC FOR TSERC IOPUCI rcq to (3P FOR ENERcy, High Court for the State of Telangana at -"o UI-_, oA_ {:! HIGH COURT DATED: 0710312025 C;C TODAY ORDER WP.No.6347 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ..r\ f A- U t'rr'1" .l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 132521 FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6347 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Sneha Renewable Energies Ltd, Kalvapally village, Garidepally mandal, Nalgonda District a company registered Under the Companies Act, '1956, Represented by its Managing Direclor, Sri Keshava Reddy, S/o. Late pLN Reddy Aged about 66 years, Occ. Managing Director, Rl,/o.Prime Legend Apartments, 515, Ramnagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad. {- ', AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER

2. The Transmission Corporation of Chairman and lrlanaging Director, State. Telangana Ltd, Represented by its Vidrit Soudha, Hyderabad, Telangana 3 4 The Southern Power Distribution Compapy of Telangana Limited, represented by its Chaiman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Chief Engineer (lPC), The Southern Power DistribUtion Company of Telangana Limited, [Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Tetangana State.

5. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Medak District at Sangareddy, Telangana State.

6. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Medak District at Sangareddy, Telangana State.

7. The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...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 issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of _'a'r,,S writ of l\Iandamurs declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheeling charges even without any generation as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff order dated 09-05-2014 of the 7th respondent and also violative of Articles 1a, t 9(1Xg), 21 , 264 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia. lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma'y be pleased to the Lr.No.CE(lPC)/DE(lPC)ADE-DA/F suspend the operation of sneha/D.No.1468t24, Dt.2-1-2025 of respondent No. 4 under the third party Sale for the period frcm 30-1 1-2024 to 30-11-2029 party supplies ,:ffected by the petitioner to its consumers viz., fi//s. Santha Shina Para Boiled lVlodern Rice Mill (NLG 32), tV/s. Sri tiai Pavan lndustries Pvt. Ltd., (NLG 755) and N,4/s. Vaishnavi Food Products Pvt. Ltd., (NLG -754), at 11 KV under captive pLlrpose, pending disposal of the abcrre writ petition, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to amend the main prayer portion in W.P-No- 6347 of 2025 as "lo issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wril of Mandamus declaring the actiorr of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheelirrg charges even without any gener:rtion as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff Order dated 09-05-2014 of the 7th respondent and set aside the proceedings -r. No.CE(lPC)/DE(lPC)ADE-DA/F Sneha/D. No.'1468/24, Dt.2-1-2025 being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia pass such ,lther order or orders as this Hon'ble Court m;ly deem fit and proper in the circurnstances of the case", instead of main prayer "to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheeling charges even without any generation as highly iltegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff order datecl 09-05-2014 of the 7th respondent and also violative of Articles ,.14, 1g(1XS), 21 1).e 4 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia. .-.'r.- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1; AGP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 6: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI P.PRASAD, SC FOR TSERC The Court made the following: ORDER lr", *7 ,/,. a 'I HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.6347 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri M,Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the resprcndent Nos.2 to 6 and Sri P.Prasad, learned standing counsel for TSERC appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: \.......':c, issue a Writ, Order or direction more prarticularly one irr l-he nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in levying the wheeling charges even urithout any generation as highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Tariff Order dated 09-05- 2Ol4 of the 7th respondent and also violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g), 21, 264 and 300-4 of the Constitution of Ind ia and pass...." It is s;p,ecific case of the petitioner that the respondent

3. No.4 is le',/)/ing the wheeling charges even withc,ut any generation a rd the same is highly illegal, arbitrary, irrational 2 X and contrary to the Tariff Order dated 09.05.2014 of the 7th respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present Writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner,s detailed representations, dated 2O.O2.2O25, 2Z.Og.ZO1-g, O5-O2.2O19, 25.O2.2OL9, 20.01.2021 and 02.O1.2O23 addressed to the respondents to exempt the Wheeling charges explaining in detail the reasons seeking the exemption of the Wheeling charges had not been considered by the Competent Authority i.e., the 4th respondent and no action had been initiated as on date, though the said representations had been acknowledged by the office of the respondents herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in respect of the similar issues pertaining to the wheeling charges, this Court in W.P.No.2716 of 2O15 in W.P.M.P.No.3648 of 2O1S vide its order dated 13.O2.2O15 granted stay of levying the ir:' hr:w.-re wheeling charges and the said stay orders are in force as on date and hence, the petitioner is entiiled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner i n the Writ Petition No.27t6 of 201S.

6. Learned standing counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on the other hand submits that the 4th respondent is competent Authority to decide the subject issue duly considering the grievance of the petitioner as put_forth in the petitioner,s detaited representatio n s, dated 05.02.2019, 25.O2.2O1g,

27.O8.2018, 2().o2.202s, 2O.O1.2O21 and O2t..O1.2923 addressed to the respondents herein.

7.7 k t a nsider ti a) The ilforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counser appearing on beharf of the respondent Nos.2 to 16. 1 4 c) The contents of the representation, dated 2O.O2.2O25, 27.O8.2OL8, o5.o2.2019, 25.O2.2OL9, 2O.OL.2O2L and O2.OL.2O23 addressed to the 3'd respondent herein. d) The Orders of this Court, dated 13.02.2O25 passed in W.P.M.P.3648 of 2015 in W.P.No 2716 of 2O15 which are in force as on date. e) The fact that the representations of the petitioner though acknowledged by the office of the Respondent Authority had not been considered as on date. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the petitioner's detailed representation, dated 2O.O2.2O25, 27.O8.2OL8, O5.O2.2019,

25.O2.2Otg, 2O.OA.2O2L and O2.O1.2O23 addressed to the respondents herein pertaining to petitioner's request for exemption of the Wheeling Charges in accordance to law within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Till the 4th I .l i 5 r:'3',4 respondent considers the said representations; of the petitioner and passes appropriate orders in accordance to law within the time period as stipulated as above, the 4th respondent is directed not to levy the wheeling charges contrary to the Tariff Order, dated 09.C,S.2015 of the 7th respondent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscelli:neous petitions, iF any, pending in this Writ Petition, sha Il stand closed. \ To, SDi. P. PADMANABHA REDDY GISTRAR' A //TRUE COPY// OFFICER Telangana. Tetangana Ltc. Vidyut Soudha". H-yde;;b;;-, telanlana State. '1 . The Principerl Secretarv, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of 2. The Chairnt.ln and .Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of 3. The chairmzrn and Arranaging Director. southern power Distribution comoanv of retansarzr r-imited, vin"t c"ompouno. IvJi]iriirii, r"rr.s;;;si;i;vv"'po"v 4. The Chief E:noineer /lPC) The Southern power DistribUtic n Comoanv of 5. The Superinlendino Engineer, operation circle, southern po rver Distribution of l-erarisana" LimiteJ,-l,leiil otii-iit"it Sansarertdy retansana Tetangana Liniited, taiht C6mpouni. Hffiil#, ;;tansana s.ate. 3,ou13rry

6. The Senior /\ccounts ?ll:,.f#tlT.1'r'' mpa n v or re ta ns a ni' i iml t"o, t r""J r l, oi.t,i"i,ii's r'rbri . Officer, Operation Circle, The S.uthern power ""o Erectricity Reguratory com m ission. singareni ' I[: ff:.fi :Tri f.,?i%T]: ;,Ete 8. One CC to SFil IV.V|SHNU VARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPL,C] 9. One CC to SFil N SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL [ODUC] 10.One CC to SFlt p.pRASAD, SC FOR TSERC [OPUC] "%iil:'"r_ ERGY, Hish court for the State o1 Tetansana at HIGH COURT DATED: 0710312025 CC TODAY r \11E s14

16. J (r 20ilAn M i:-1.;: ::y 'si:'1lil\ Dt t: ,t1'. .ji ORDER WP.No.6347 of 2025 /: '-) i) O * : I I I I i l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .r\ f A- U J,G\"