The High Court · 2025

ORDER HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.1 500 of2 25 Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of respondent No'1' Sri P.Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri N'sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'3 to 5 2 Th hed heC rts kin u nder: "...to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring [he action of Respondent No.4 in passing the Impugn5d Demand Notice vide Lr.No'SE/OPlHBG/ snbl-nno-nrl )Aol HT/ D.No.65s/ 24-25, dated tq.OZ.zOZS and Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO- HT/HBG 1467l D.No.51, dated 02'05'2025 which was received on 05.05.2025 issued by Respondent No'4 as Der the common order passed by the Respondent No'2 in o.P.16 of 2005 and batch dated 30'08'2024 re- Jetermining the Cross Subsidy Surc.harge CSS purported 1o be exercising powers under .Sections is(z)(oXii), 40 (cXii) and 42(2) of the Electricitv Act, ,obiiA.i ioo:l'ri,i the FY 2o0s-06 to FY 2ot4-t5 to be recovered from the consumers who availed power iuppty through open access as arbitrary illegal .oi't.u.V to th6 provisions of the Electricity Act' 2003' fetangina Statb electricity Re-g-ulatory Commission CondrJct of Business Regulation 2015 more particularly i ': 2 Regulati,ln No.2 of 2015 and in violation of principles of natural justice besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 74, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India consequentlv set aside the Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/ OP/ H BC;1SAO / AAO / J AO-HT / HBG 467 / D. No. 5 1, ctated 0i'..05.20:l-5 which was received on 05.05.2025 and Lr.No. t;E/ OP/ HBG/ SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/ D.No.65 j/2425, dated 14.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.4."

3. Th se of h toner ln s er th V made bv the oetitioner in the affidavit filed bv the petitioner tn suDDo rt of the Dresent Writ Petition is as under:- It is the specific case of the petitioner that the [Lespondent No.4 issued th€: Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.S=/OplHBG/ SAO/ AA,O-HT/ IAO/ HT/ D.No.655/ 24-25, dated ).4.02.2025 calling upon tl^e: petitioner to pay the Cross subsidy surcharge amount of Rs.1,16,08,030.00/- (Rupees One Crore Six:een Lakhs Eight thousand thirty only) within 15 days from the date of issue of the said deman,l notice. It was further stipulated in the ;aid notice that failure on the part of the petitioner to do so within the stipulated perioC would lead to raising of the said Cross subsidy surcharges in the regular C.C Charge bills as per the rule:,; in voque, without any fui,her notice and the subject service will tre ordered for disconnection (\ 3 It is further the case of the Petitioner that in response to the said impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025, the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 22.O4.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation(Circle), Hbbsiguda, TGSPDCL requested for review of the impugned notice,- dated 14.02.2025 explaining very clearly vide the said letter that as per the agreement existing between the power generation company with the petitioner company, the Cross -Subsidy Surcharge or any other charges, if any shall be paid by the power generation company alone and the petitioner company is not liable to pay any charges other than the cost of the power, and therefore, the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 needs to be revoked with immediate effect and the same needs to be withdrawn with immediate effect duly reviewing the impugned demand notice, dated L4.02.2025. It is further the specific case of the petitioner that in spite of petitioner's detailed representation, dated 22.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner in response to the impugned demand notice, dated L4.02.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL addressed to the said Authority, curiously without considering the same, the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner: that the petitioner is liable to pay the charges determined I I 4 by the State El,:ctricity Regulatory Commission from tim,:) to time as per the HT Agreement, clause No.B, dated 20.10.2019 and further the petitionellas called upon to clear the notices issued against CSS or rnake rrr:cessary arrangements for payments. A,;lgrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Court by fiiing the present Writ Petition

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A.T e releva nt Do ion of the imouo ed notice Lr.No.SE/OPl HBG/SAO/ AO-HT IJAOI HTlD.No.555, dated L4.O2.2O25 of'the Suoerintendinq Enoineer, o Deration Circle, Habsiqud a, TG SPDCL issued to the oetitioner i s extr acted hereu nder: - "...Hence SC NO HBG|467 (RRE1467) M/s.Vocafon Idea Lirrited is liable to pay the Cross Suirsidy Surchargle amount of Rs.1,16.08030.00 (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Eight Thousand Thirty Only) within (lli) fifteen days from the date of issue 01'this demand notice. Further, it is to inform that, In case of any do u bts/cla rifica tio ns it ls requested to approach this offi:,: during office hours along with relevant records (i.e., agreement copies of captive power, third party if any) of reconciliatio n. Failure to do so withi n the stiDu ated oeriod, the said Cross Subsidy Surc ha roes will be raised in the reoular C.C charoe Bills as oer rules in v ue, without an f r otice an orderecl disconn gction. " B he Droceedi qs Lr.No.SE/O P/HBG/SAO/A o/JAO- HTI HBG L467 I D.NO.s1. dated 02.05.2025 of Suoerintendin q Enoi eer. Ooer ation/Habsio uda Circle. >i. Ct 5 PD t to er r's n r d t

22.O4.2025 is extra dhe und r:- ...'1. There is no captive power consumption igreement between M/s.SKJ Power Projects Limited aid u/r.vodafone Essar South Ltd. 2. M/s.Vodafone Idea Limited - HBG1467 is liable to pay tne charges determined by state electricity legulatory commission from time to time as per the HT agieement, clause No.B, dated 28.10'2019' w r erence u 3 As coDv enclosed in ref KJ 2n iects Limite d inde mnifies the consu er Power P (Ml s.Vod afone Idea imited ) aoai st anv cha (includin oCS )le ied bv thedi tribu ion t e e o cited, M/s. H a make n a u ssarv arran emen c for o vmen s." DISCUSSION AN D ONL USIO N:- DIS CUSSI N:- 5 mainl vDu ts-forth the n n r !lowi nq sub mrssrons:- i) The impugned demand notice, dated 14'02'2025 and the consequential proceedings, dated 02'O5'2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsiguda Circle' TGSPDCL, Hyderabad issued to the petitioner are illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and are orders passed in a routine manner without duly examining the 6 terms; of the power purchase agreement since a bare perusal of the said terms would indicate that the liability for the Cross-subsidy Surcharge rests with the power generating company as per the agreement's terms. ii) The superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsi,luda circle, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad failed to consider the detailed repre:;,:ntation furnished by the petitio 1er, dated

22.04.2025 in response to the impugned notice: of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the said Authority and mechanically rejected the petitioner,s request for revoking the impugned notice cf demand, dated 14.02.2025 vide the impugned proceeciings, dated

02.05.2025, without application of mind, irr a routine mann 3r, contrary to the terms of the pow,t:r purchase agree'nent existing between the power generation company and the petitioner's company and the same was illegal and liable to be set-aside. iii) The impugned demand notice, dated 14..OZ.2OZ5 and the impugned proceedings, dated O2.OS.2O2l; of the Super'ntending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL issued to the petitioner are in clear violation of principles of natural justice since the petitiorrer had not 7 been provided with an oppoftunity of personal hearing and hence, liable to be set-aside. iv) The impugned proceedings, dated 02'05'2025 needs to be set-aside and the matter remitted to the Authority concerned for reconsideration oF the Subject issue afresh by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Ba n n a h !f present Writ Petition. b rth reli s n e s t for in T Iea r u Nos. fol wtn bm rons o e ts- rth he i) The petitioner is not entitled for grant of the relief as prayed for in the Present Writ Petition. ii) There is no illegality in issuing the impugned demand notice, dated L4.02.2025 and the impugned proceedings' dated 02.05.2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation' Habsiguda Circle, TGSPDCL, rejecting petitioner's representation' daled 22,04.2025, seeking revocation of the impugned demand made vide impugned demand notice, dated 14'02'2025' I 8 iii) In vie'r.' of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner's representation, dated 22.0,:1.2025 had been considert:rl and proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued, there <:annot be any further consideration of the subject issue by the re:;pondent company. Based o0 the aforesaid submi ssions, learned standino counsel aDDearino on behalf of the resDondent Nos.3 to 5 contends tha the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:-

7. It is spe(:ific case of the petitioner that in response to the impugned noti:,3 of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issr-red to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operat on Circle, Habsiguda, TGI;PDCL, the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 22..04.2C215 addressed to the said Authority requested for review of the irnpugned notice, dated 14.02.2025 and tc withdraw the same with immediate effect and further requested to schedule a meeting to resolve the subject issue amicably. B. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that the :ontents of the petitioner's detailed representation addressecl to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL , -::r - ':: ,. -:.riii,lrl j i I ,rtt::t S.i--:i-tral 9 had not been considered in a proper perspective duly examining the terms of agreement entered into between the power generation company and the petitioner company and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing mechanically i'n a routine manner the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL reiterating that the petitioner company is liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned demand notice, dated L4.02.2025 issued to the petitioner.

9.D ulv consi erino the submission of the lea rned counsel aDDeafl no on behalf of the oetitioner that the Detation r was denie an ooDortu nitv of oer nal hearin Drlor to rssuance of the imouqned oroceedinqs dated O2. 5.2025 and uDon the lea rned standino counsel aDDearanq on behalf of the dent com Danv in reolv to he said uerv doe resDon f ctt e r had n d n n rmDuoned proceedinqs

02.o5.2 25 bv h r Hab a TGSPDCL. i i I l0

10. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not been provided with an opportunity of personat hearing and in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitionerr vide his representation, dated 22.04.2f,25 addressed to the Superintendino Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL requested to schedute a meeting to resolve the subject issue and the same however had not been considered and the petitioner had not been provideld with an opportunity of personal hearing prior to considering petitioner's representation, dated 22.04.2025 anrl prior to issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad, this Court opines that the subject issue needs reconsideration by the concerned Authority in accordance to law in conformity with principles r:rf natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

11. The learn tandin earrn onb s. 1&2a nd The lea rned sta nd in q counset aooearinq on lf of th No u e e s aDDea ranq on behalf of petitioner for Drovidino an l1 nitv of Dersonal hearinq to the Detitioner and for ODDO reconsid eration of oetitioner's reDres entation,

22.O4 .2O25 in a rdance to Iaw

12. Tak ino into consid ration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. c) The contents of the impugned notice of demand, dated L4.O2.2O25 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL addressed to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the representation dated 22-04.2025 of the petitioner addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL. e) The contents of the impugned proceedings, dated the petitioner by the 02.05.2025 issued to Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL rejecting petitioner's request for withdrawing I I I I f I 12 the impugned notice of demand, dated 1.4.O2.ZO2S issued to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is disposed ol, directing the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL to reconsider the representation submitjted by the petitioner dated 22.04,2025, in response to the impugned notice of dernand, dated 14.02.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle,/Flabsiguda, TGSPDCL, and also its decision made vide the impugned proceedings, dated O2.O5.2O25I in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitaoner. Till the exercise as indicated as above is initiated and concluded by passing of appropriate orders by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle,/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL duly reconsidering the petitioner,s representation, dated 22.O4.2O25t as per the specific directions as issued as above within the time period as stipulated as above, the 13 respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice, dated 14.O2.2025 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation 'Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL However, there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ISTRAR DEPUry SECTI FFICER W ?*. Hyderabad. 1 . The Secretary, The State of Telangana, Energy Department, Secretariat, 2. The Secretary, Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, ^ Singareni Bhawan, Red Hills Rd, Lakdikapiul, H-yderaiiad, Telangana 500004. 3. The Chairman and Managing Director, Southein Power Distribuition Company of Telangana_Ltd, (TGSPDCL), R/o. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad,' Telangana - 500063. Erragadda, Hyderabad. Erragadda, Hyderabad.

4. The Superintending Engineer, Banjara Hills, TGSpDCL, GTS Colony, 5. The Senior Accounts Officer, Banjara Hills, TGSPDCL, GTS Colony, 6. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the Staie of T6langana, at B. One CC to Sri P. Prasad, SCIOPUCI 9. One CC to Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, SCiOPUCI 10.Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] To, TJ GJP .--' HIGH COURT CC TODAY, VACATION COURT DATED:0710512025 .::- '', ,:L': .a Ea>ry s* c:.E- ' i.., ,-, \ ;:\\ ,l <l ,, li i: !t :, ..''.,. ) \, / ORDER WP.No.15008 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s Lbl