Mahalakshmi Profiles (P) Ltd v. 1. The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State

. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the tated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be circumstances pleased to issu a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wri , direction, order or orders declaring the action of the ot conceding the petitioners request for availing additional open respondents in 15 MW as wholly arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction and void access power o y direct the respondenls to allow additional open access power and consequent of 15 MW. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 2nd respondent to issue No-Objection for availing additional open access power of 1 5 l\4W by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ERIGI GANESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the lfollowing: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGF,SH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 13917 OF.2o23 ORDER: Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to respondents to allow additional open access power of 15 MW' Petitioner is H.T. category consumer of the 2"d 2. respondent DISCOM. During 2017, it is stated, when they applied for availing open access power of 6.5 M.W' (6500 KVA), the 2"d respondent refused permission on the ground of non- availability of distribution network corridor' Petitioner therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 25144 oit ZOtz which was allowed by order dated 28.09.2O18 directing respondents therein to allow open access on the ground that reasons stated for refusal are dubious. Respondents thereafter, preferred Writ Appeal No. 80 of 2O 19 and the same was dismissed' Consequently, petitioner was allowed to avail open access power of 6.5 MW. Thereafter, CMD of petitioner was enhanced to 16'5 MW by Ol .O4.2022. Petitioner therefore, by letters dated 1a.O7.2022 and 04.O8.2022 requested respondents to permit open access of 16.5 M.W. Thereupon, the Chief Engineer, Rural I I ./ 2 Zone, by ie[ter dated 1O.O8.2O22 directed petit.ioner to deposit Rs.2, i8,30,000/ for development of 132 KV independent line from ManohaLrabad Sub-station.to petitioner's factory and they complied witr the said direction even and the Superintendent Engineer sr.rbmitted report on 21.O3.2O23. In the me:rnwhile, petitioner OIVID was enhanced to 21.5 MW. and applied to Respondents for issuance of no objection for availing additional 15 MW., making a total of 21.5 M.W., however respondents have not issued no objection.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Erigi Ganesh submits that respondents cannot deny open access and rt is the statutory right of petitioner under Sections 42 and 4:] of the Electricity Ac:- (for short, 'the ActJ. To support his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brihanmumhai Electric Supplg dnd Transport Und.ertaking a. Maharashtra Electricitg Regulatory Commissiorr (MERC\.

4. The case of TSSPDCL, as stated by the Chief General Manager (lPC), is that petitioner enhanced its CMD from 6.5 to 12I .5 MW in 2022 and upgraded its voltage level from 33 KV to l3il KV- It is stated, respondents ha',,e been issuing ' lzors; z scc a:s ./. J * NOC to petitioner for OA capacity of 6.5 MW amid saturated grid constrains as per direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25144 of 2017. They chose to avail open access power for higher OA capacity and if permitted, it will cause huge impact on the schedules of the respondent company and affect the grid stability. The argument of learned Standing counsel for TSSPDCL Sri R. Vinod Reddy is that respondent company is also to generate funds to subsidize economically-weaker sections of societ5r, farmers, etcetera. In the present case, the entire grid capacity was allotted to various consumers and there is no corridor available to accept the request of petitioner for additional open access over and above 6.5 MW. According to learned Standing Counsel, availing of supply through open access with short intervals and higher OA capacity throughout a day would further ioad the network resulting in congestion of the existing network, in view of the same, petitioner was informed vide letter dated O2.O9.2O22 t!:,at enhancement of OA capacity cannot be considered. It is also submitted that this respondent company with an intention to provide 24 hours supply to all its consumers, has been purchasing power from Power Exchanges in which rate is very uncertain and depends l 4 upon the externai factors such as availabiliq' of porver and demand across the nation and they are under obligzrtion to supply uninterrupted power to all consumers and utilise the grid judiciously to accommodate them.

5. FJ.aving gone through the provisions of the Electricity Ac t, particularly a conjoint reading of Sect ions 42 and 43 of the Act along with the objectives and purposes for which it was ,:nacted, it becomes clear that when an Application is made by a consumer to a distribution licensee for supply of electricity, s'rch a distribution licensee can reqrlest other distribution licensee in the area to provide its nelwork l-o make available for wheeling electricity to such cons Llmers and this open access is to be given as per the provisions cf Section 42(3). However, TSSPDCL uide letter dated O2.O9.2O22 informed that enhancement of OA capacity could not be consiclered as availing of supply through open access with short intervals ancl higher OA capacitS' throughout a day would further load the network resulting in congestion of existing network.

6. A.dmittedly, petitioner was allowed OA capacity of

6.5 MW in'.201.7 and thereafter it was enhancecl to 16.5 MW in 2OZZ and 2 I .5 MW. Though, as contended by the learned 5 counsel, it shall be the duty of distribution licensee to develop and maintain an eflicient distribution system and further Section 42 (31 of the Electricity Act casts a duty upon the distribution iicensee to provide Open Access to the consumers, in this regard, the case of TSSPDCL is that distribution corridor is getting overloaded due to various schemes of Government of Telangana to provide 24 hours power supply to all the services including agricultural services from January 2O18 onwards and to abide by the policy of the State Government, TSDISCOMS have to make necessary arrangements for adequate power procurement from various sources for which rate is very uncertain and depends upon the external factors such as availability and demand. Apart from that, petitioner has been availing supply from respondent when power prices at exchange are at higher rate than the distribution companies' tariffs.

7. In view of the specific contentions of learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that if petitioner is permitted to upgrade the OA capacity, it will further burden the network resulting in congestion of the existing network. The Writ Petition does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 8 9 closed 'I'he Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed No Irliscelianeous Applications, if ar-ry shall stand //TRUE COPY// ASSI Sd/- N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR ON OFFICER 'O,,,. On" CC tO SRI ERIGI GANESH, AdVOCAIE TOPUC]

2.OneCCtoSRIR.VINoDREDDY,SCfoTTSSPDCLtoPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies BSR MP d \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 ORDER WP.No.13917 of 2023 .--=:. .:j :\ j!' . ,^/ 1l fi.- ',.tii '\: ,,/ c E.S ol''1 glr:' --' -==:-==,' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS ,]{= \