High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D.SRINIVAS PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respcndent No.2 & 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL The Cqqrt deliveref, tlre follorying: JUDGMENT I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA AIYD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL No. 564 oF 20.25 JUDGM EN T: This Writ Appeal was filed aggrieved by the order dated 3O.04.2O25 in Writ petition No. 13773 of 2025 wherein learned Single Judge imposed the condition of payment of S0% of the amount under the impugned demand bifl dated ot.o4.2C25 2 Learned counsel for appellant Sri D. Srinivas Prasad among other grounds raised, emphatically submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that order dated 3O.O8.2O24 was passed by TGERC violating the principles of natural justice; likewise, even the impugned demand notice dated O I .O2.2025 was raised wrthout giving any notice to appellant. a Heard Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2"d respondent.

4. The brief case of appellant is that they entered into a power purchase agreement dated 20. ll.2)24 with Sree Rayalaseema Green Enerry Limited (SRGEL), the Generator, I , _--- 2 1 under \l,hicf , appellant paid all the invoice amc,unts rel,lrlarly as and when rrLised. However, the SRGEL abruptly ;tcpped the supply frcm {ugust 2Ol4 and then appellant :ont r,lc1ed power supply fr,rm t he 2nd respondent. It is stated, there u ert: no dues from appellant to the 2"d respondent at any poinl ol rrnre.

5. V,rhile so, the erstwhile A.P. State I,)lectricity Regulatory I ommission had passed proceedrngs le:ermining Cross SubsiClr Surcharge (CCS) for the hnancial .,,e :rr 2005-06 in O.P.No.1(r of 2OO5, 2006-07 in O.P.No.13 of 1l(to(, and for 2OO7-O8 in ().P.No. 56 of 2OO7 dated 27.09.2005, 2!r.08.2006 and 31.O11.2 )07 respectively. The distribution companl(is sought for fresh rlet: rmination of CSS for the financial years 2{)05-06 to 2072-1,3 by filing interlocutory applications in the croceedings initiaterl :arLier for other hnancial years in O.P.Nos.5 of 2OO7, 73 of 2072, 74 of 2012,75 of 2012,76 of 2Ol2 an<1 77 of 2012. The TGtrl?C thereafter decided the matter by rvay o I c alling for objectionr; afLer issuing public notice dated 08.(11t.2017 and decided the matter on 06.04.2018. The said orcl:.'rs were challenged in Writ Petition No. 22191 of 2018 an1 lratch on various grotr:rds, inciuding that principles of na trtrz:.I justice were not obr;,:rved before deciding CSS and issuan<:e :f public notice is not ;ufficient under Rule 16(ii) and 1l' of Regrrlation 2 t I 3 of 2015. The said batch of Writ petitions came to be disposed on 12.02.2020 and this Court quashed the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the TGERC and remanded the matter for fresh determination of CSS after giving notice to the affected parties in terms of Clauses 16(ii) and 17 of the Regulation and to pass appropriate orders within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The said six month period expired in August 2020. This Court further granted liberty to parties to raise all objections as available to them under law before the TGERC and directed the TGERC to decide the cases for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. After remand, the respondents failed to issue any notice to the appellant and proceeded to pass the order dated 30.0g.2024 ltxing CSS and based on the said order, issued demand notice dated

01.O2.2O25 directing appellant to pay Rs. 1,75,93,656/_ under threat of disconnection.

6. Since the matter was remanded to TGERC and learned Single Judge also in the Writ petition granted liberty to parties to raise all the objections as available to them under law before the TGERC which was directed to decide the cases for the years 2OO4-05 and 2O05-06, without going into merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the appellant 4 to hle a. representation before respondents. O -r such representzrtio r., respondents are directed to dispose c'i t he same in accoldan< e u'ith law. Till then, no coercivc steJ,s shall be rnitiated agai r st appellant. 7 8 'l'he Writ Appeal is accordingly, dispc,s:d of. No O,rnsequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stanC c osed /TTRUE COPY// SD'-P. C i;li8fltHE3l$HiA SEOTION OFFICER To, riat, l-lYderabad, State of 1 The Principal Sr:cretary' Energy Department' Se ' ilil;ii'.;,l,''ilt"B's'ls"'xT:'sJrxit?';I:'BY[?: 3l:;,.:Hfi :'tpl''bi*'ilen;1"'il,"i#*il?"':iln"18+t'ii'liJ;:?T'E?1'ooll ':':i]]r'ilr:'"'?31"T'i TGSFDCL' HY.JETAOAO

4. One Q0 to 9Rr f, SRINIVAS PRASAD' {dvoqate [OPUA] ;. ;;" ii. .o N ; il;11ioiii,'o* REDDY' sc FoR rGSPD't- t()Pucl i*ERGY' Hish court ror the state 'rr reransana at 'BEEDHAR 7 Two CP copign BSR BS 1 VACATIoNCOURT HIGH COURT DATED: 2810512025 JUDGMENT WA.No.56 4 of 2025 rA'r a A ,/, /c- { (} iiii t$x ? Li .I, .tn I ar,l; PISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL' WITHOUT COSTS t 1)