M/s. Raasi Refractories Limited v. '1 . Southern Power Distribution compgny o^f rs Limited

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 writ, order or Direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent corporation in demanding arrears towards back billing with HT 11 KV Tariff instead of 33 KV Tariff from october 2005 to May 2019 of an amount of Rs. 98,94,668/- pursuant to the proceedings vide Lr. No. SE/oP/NLG/SAO/HT/D. No.794t2o24 dated 15-02-2025 issued by the Respondent Corporation, as arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, 19 of constitution of lndia and section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 and set aside the same. :,1"' lA NO: 1 OF 202'5 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings vide Lr. No. SE/OP/NLG/SAO/HTiD. No. 79412024 dated '1 5/02120.a5 issued by the Respondent Corporation demanding arrears towards back billing with HT 11 KV Tariff instead of 33 KV Tariff from October 2005 to May 201 9 of an amount of Rs. 98,94,668/-, as otherwise the Petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable loss. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company Of TS Limited being represented by its Chairman and Director, #6-1-50, lVlint Compound, Hyderabad-500 063

2. The Supe'intendrng Engineer, Operation Circle Nalgonda, TSSPDCL. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 M/s. Raar;i Refractories Limited, Narketpally Village and Mandal Nalgonda District being represented by lts Director Mr. Konda Laxmaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business Rl/o.H.No.6-3-92/8, Ramgiri, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda district. Consumel Grievances Redressal Forum -ll, TGSPDCL, H.No.8-03-167/E/1 CPTI Pre nises, GTS Colony Vengalrao Nagar, Erragadda Hyderabad. Pin code - 50()045 2 3 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Dr. B.R. Amdedkar Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interrm Order dated 17.03.2025 in l.A.No.'1 of 2025 in W.P.No.7985 ol 2025 in the interest of justice. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. VENKATARAMANAIAH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: ORDER SC FOR TGSPDCL rew.7 ittia,ri - _ . , A THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.7985 of 2o25 ORDER: Hearcl M / s. Venkataramanaiah, learned - counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appearing for the respondents, and perused the record'

2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "-..,to issr.ie Wit, Orcter or Directiotl t ore irL the noture oI Wit of Maftd.r]mus decloring the oction oJ the Respondent CorPoration in cle,rnanding arrears t.otuarcls back billing wth HT 11 KV'laiff instead oJ 33 KV lirrff from October, 2005 to May, 2O19 of ant amount of proceedings vide Rs.g8,g4,66S/ - Lr.No.SD/ OP/ NLG/ iAO/ H'U D-No.794/ 2024 dated 15.o2.2O25 issued bg the Respondent Corporotion as arbitrary and contrary to Article 14' 1b of Conititution o7 tidia ancl Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 attd set aside the sanrc .. ." pursuant to

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner Company is in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks and allied products Initially the Petitioner Company had entered into a HT Agreement datedl3-O2-lg85withAndhraPradeshStatetrlectricityBoard'for HT Power supply for demand of 8OO KVA at 33 KV, and the Board had agreed to supply the electricity, and the Petitioner Company was paying the bills and there was no default in payments of the bills raised. Subsequently, the Petitioner Company entered into a HT Agreernent dated 30 10 2004 with Andhra Pradesh Power l z Distribution Company Limited for the purpose of sttpply of 33 KV voltage po,ver for a maximum load of 700 KVA, arrd the Petitioner Company has paid ail the necessary charges to r,he Respondent Corporation. Since 2OO4, thc Pctitioner Companl' has been paying the bills fc r Lhe supply of 33 KV clectricity- As mit Lter stood thus, the Respondcnt Corporation withouL giving an opportunity to the Petitioner Company, issued Lr.No.SE/OP/NLCIlSAO/HT/D.No. 22O I 19 daLed 29-O6-2O19 demanding an amount of Rs.54,74,419 /- on the gro Lrncl Lhat the Petitioncr Company is having a sanctioned load of 40( KVA and the scrvice bills werc issued in 33KV instead of 11 KV. The Respondent Corporation further allegecl that the bills would hav,: to bc revised from October 2005 to M:w 2019, and the action of t re Respondcnt Corporation in demanding billing arrears aftcr a per iocl of 15 ycars is wholly arbitrary. Afic'r receipt of the notice, the Petilioner Cornpany subn'ritted explanatirrt-t datcd O7-1i- 20 1,9 to th: Rcspondent Corporation stating that tliey had obtained specified vrltage of 33 KV and the same has been crrntinuing since October 2(tO5, and it is not liablc to pay amount tc the Respondent Corporation. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondent Corporation in demanding the arrears, the pctitioner Companr approached the Consumer Greivance Redressal Forum-I (Rural), TSSPDCL in CG No. lO3ltao2l-2o22 / Nalgonda Circle, and the Eorum without considerin 1 the complaint rejected the complaint on 25-04-2023. It I 'I I I 3 is further stated that the Respondent Corporation again issued a letter dated 2g-O5-2O23 demanding an amolrnt of Rs' 83,79,718/- towards accumulated arrears lou'ards back billing with HT 11 KV Tariff instead ol 33 KV Tariff from October 2005 to May 2Ol9 ' Questioning the proceedings dated 29 -06-2019 ar.d 29-05-2023 issued by the Respondent Corporation, the petitioner company filed WP No. 14940 of 2023 on the file of this Court, and this Court allowed the sai<l writ petition by order dated 08-07-2024 setLing aside the impugned procecdings therein and directed the Respondent Corporation to pass appropriate reasoned orders afler providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' The Petitioner submitted a representation da[ed 20.O9 2024 stating that it is not liable for back billing arrears and the attempt to consider the 33 KV voltage of the Petitioner for 11 KV voltage tariff is untenable' and the Respondenl Corporalion rl'ithout considering the representation impugned order Lr.No.SE/OP/NLG/SAO/JAOiSA/HT/D' No' 794 124 dated 15-02- the Petitioner, passed the

4. A counter affrdavit has been filecl by respondent Nos l and 2 stating that as the petitioner failed to make payment of the back billing demanded amount, the respondent company disconnected power supply to the petitioner on 28'03'2022' Aggieved thereby' 1 the petiti,rncr approached the Consumer Gricvernce Redressal Forum ll in CG No.1O3 12021-22lNalgonda Circle . and initially the petrtioner was direcLed to pay a sum of Rs_ lO.O0 lakhs and also directed r,)spondent comllany to restore the pou,cr supply. On payment rf the said amourlt, porrver suppl-y r,res restored on 3O.O3.2O2'.a to llre pctitioner's company. Later on 25.04.2023, the said comJrlaint was dismissed stating that there are no valid grounds tc set aside the impugned notice and wa tvc off the notice amount is,;usal 1. the consumer. It is further st.rlcd that against the said order perssed by tl're Forum, the petitionr:r ltas ern cffcctive altcrnative remedy of filing appcal belore thc Vidr.ut Ombudsman under the provisions of the trlectricity Act, 2003, and the General Tcrms and Conditions of Supply.

5. Learnecl counscl for the petitioner submittccl tltat respondent No.3 has n tt entertaincd the appeal filed by the petrlioncr.

6. Learrrecl Standing Counsel for tl're appeilriltg for the respondents, fetirly contcnded to direct rcsponden, No.3 to decide the matter cf mcrits.

7. In vicw of the above, Lhis writ petition is disp,rsed of directing respondent No.3 to entertain the complaint yet to be filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by respondent \o.2. On filing :i / I 5 of the complaint, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the said complaint within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such complaint. No costs

8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR L SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The chairman and Director, southern Power Distribution company of TS Limited, 6-1-5O,Mint Compound, Hyderabad-500 063

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle Nalgonda, TSSPDCL' " 6Fii P;;r',iei, EtS cotony vengalrao Nagar, Erragadda Hvderabad- Pin 3.ConsumerGrievancesRedressalForum-ll,TGSPDCL,H.No.8-03-16.7/E/1 code - 500045

4. The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Dr. B.R. Amdedkar secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

5. One CC to SRI VENKATARAMANAIAH.K, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUC] 7'TwoCCstoGPFoRENERGY,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] B. Two CD CoPies BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED: 1810812025 : I IArt /,4 . . t ' ,' 1s stF 2U5

9., ('( z -)),+, )/ i .:, ORDER WP.No.7985 of 2025 DISPOSIN(i OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ltr' 11 \q