M/s. Someen poty Films v. 1. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Petilion Under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the collection of bills under the L.T. Category_ll (Commercial) including disconnection of the petitioners power suppry pending disposar of the above writ petition. 2 Petitir:n 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 vacate the interim orders dated 24t06r2020 in wp No. 8g04 0t 202a and dismiss the writ petit'on. 3 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to amend the writ prayer in w.p. No.ggo4/2020 0n the fire of this Honourabre court es folrows:- t. issue a writ or order of direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring (i) the notice in lefter No. ADE/Op/Gaganpahad/ D:'No' 497412020 dated 06.02.2020 0f the 3rd respondent and (ii) the order in case No' D'L/RJNR/1350'20 dated 24.06-2020 0f the 2na respondent as highry illegal, :arbitrary, unjust, high handed and without jurisdiction apart from being viorative of Articres 14' 19 (1Xg). 21,265 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequerrfly set aside the same. |-A:NO:4 OF 2020 Petition Under section 151 cPc praying that in the circurhstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order in case No. DpE/RJNR/1350/20 dated 24lool202o of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI c CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.VINOD REDDY W.P.NO: 18493 OF 2023 Between: M/s. Someen Poly Films, (Service Connection No. 3405-05920) plot No. 75IB.SE1E, Kated.an, Rajend.ranagar, District, Hyderabad:S0O77, rep. by its Proprietor, Raghubier Sing Saluja. -Rangareddy AND .....PETITIONER 1 The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Chairman and Managing Director, Minl Compound, Hyde State. Limited, rep. by its rabad, Telangana

2. The Divisional Engineer, Operation, the Southem power Diskibution Company of Telangana Limited, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy District.

3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, operation, the southem power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Gaganphad, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant Engineer (AE), the Southern power Distribution Comoanv of Telangana Limited, Katedan, Rajendrangar, Rangareddy District.

5. The Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O., the Southem power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Gaganphad, 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 or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not effecting duration of the petitioners contracted load at 5 KW level with effect from 14.o6.2022 onward an,l 1 KW level load with effect from 04.03.2023 onwards as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and high handed apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 (lxg), 21, jl65 and 300-4 of the Constitution of tndia. ].A.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 respondents to bill the petitioner treating the petitioner's contracted load as 1 l(A/ pendinll disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt G.CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.V|NOD REDDY The Court nrade the following COMMON OROER n { i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA :: AND Petitionerisstatedtohaveindulgedin manufacturing activity of plastic produce which involves rolling of poly film with non-adhesive colours to produce self-designed polyfilmwhichisbeingusedinthemanufactureofpaper plates. tnitially, they obtained necessary registration certificate from the tndustrial Department and subsequently, as per the policy of the Government, U<lyog Aadhar Memorandurn for the manufacture of above produce was obtained by petitioner from theDistrictlndustriesCentreuid.eproceedingsdated o2.01 .2017. l.l.Itisstated,petitiorrerinitiallyobtainedggHPload andsubsequentlywassanctionedstandbyloadof99HPpower supply.Duringinspectionbeingcarriedoutatregularintervals, at no point of time, according to petitioner' any irregularities whatsoeverhavebeenpoirrtedoutaSagainsttheirService Connection (SC)- The DPE wing conducted inspection on O5.O2.2Olg, pursuant to which, the 3'd respondent issued *- :\ I, 2 notice ,lated 21.o2.2019 in respect of Service connections No. 340505920 and 340501184; in both the notices, the 3d responclent alleged that petitioner had been is using its service connecl.ions for printing purposes on the plastic sheet roles which is not a manufacturing activity; as per the Tariff order 2orl-111, printing activity would come under LT category-ll i.e. commercial activitJr. petitioner submitted explanation dated 11.03.2()19 denying allegations and stating that they are carrying on manufacturing activity and not commercial activity, therefort:, the service connections would come under LT category-III. I L'2. However, the 3'd respondent passed provisional assessm(:nt order dated or.os.2o19, back-billing petitioner to the tune of Rs-6,3s,so2/- in respect of Service connection No. 3405-051)20 from rl.o2.2o1g to tr.o42o19 (alleged unit loss at l,9L,77Lt and in respect of Service connection No. 34o5-0sg2o, Rs'5,40,477 /- for the said period (aileged u.it ross at 1,63,4r9). Petitioner submitted representation before the 2,d respondent on oL-o7.2019. It is stated, the 2"d respondent dropped all the allegations made by the 3'd respondent and consequently, they entered i*to LT Agreement with petitioner for LT category-[l (industriat) service connection. I J

1.3. To their surprise, it is stated, petitioner received another provisional assessment notice dated 06.O2.2O2O impugned in this Writ Petition from the 3rd respondent wherein it is alleged that during inspection on O1.O2.2O20, petitioner was using power supply for printing purpose; as per the tariff order 2}tl-12, printing activity comes under LT category-Il hence, they proposed back-bill to their service cqnnection. t Petitioner is stated to have submitted detailed representation on L7.O3.2O20 to the 2.d respondent. Curiously, the 4th respondent started issuing bills from April 2Ol9 again billing petitioner under LT category -ll (Commercial). The 4e respondent collected the excess amount of Rs.6,O72361- under threat of disconnection. Apart from that, suddenly in the bill dated

11.06.2020, the 4ft respondent included Rs.5,72,LOtl- which amount was demanded by the 3'd respondent uide notice dated Cl6.02.2020. Hence, petitioner prays to declare the notice dated 1 C)6.02.2020 ofthe 3'd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary'

2. This Court by order dated 24-06.2020 granted stay of collection of bills under LT category - II (Comrnercial) and also directed not to disconnect power supply-

3. During currency of above interim order, petitioner is stated to have received order dated 24.06-2020 of the l"t .a 4 respondent stating that on ol.o2.2o2o, the 3'd respondent inspected petitioner's premises and reiterating the allegations in the rrotice dated 06.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, the 3'd respondent issued report dated 1r.06.2020 based on which, the 2"d respondent caused back billing to the tune of Rs.5,6L,+691-. According to petitioner, the said action o[the 2n.r respondr:nt is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, high-handed and contumacious. Hence, petitioner has taken out I.A.No. 3 of 2o2o seeking ,emendment of prayer including challenge to the order dated 24.06.2020 of the 2'd respondent. The said Application was ordered on 22.08.2025.

4. Seeking to vacate the interim order, a vacate petition was liled along with counter-affidavit liled by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (operations) stating that during inspection on o5.o2.'2o19,, the Detection of pilferage of Energ, (DPE) wing inspected petitioner company and found it utilizing the powe:' supply for printing purposes i.e. printing on plastic sheet wittr 'Roro GRAVURE'machines; as per tariff order 2olg- 19 which is applicable at present also, the activity being carried on by pr:titioner falls under commercial category i-e. non- domestic LT category-Il, but the service was being bifled under LT category-Ill which is applicable to industry. It is stated, at t. I t. { 5 thetimeofobtainingserviceconnection,petitionerhad deliberately misrepresented about the activity they intend to undertake with an intention to gain wrongfully and to deprive thelstrespondentcompanytoapptythecorrecttariff.Since petitioner had noted the purpose for which the Service Connection is required as 'industry" it was provided under LT category-Ill, hence it is liable to pay the amount' It is stated, based on the inspection cond'ucted on 4.t. O5.O2.2Olg, as the activity carried on by petitioner is comrnercial, impugned demand notice was issued in respect of SC No. 3405-0592O as the service was being operated in the category other than the disclosed category' imposing back - billingfortheperiodfromOT'O2'2O19toOL'O2'2O20'asaresult of which, revenue loss to the lst respondent \f,/as assessed at Rs.5,72,0Oll-, hence, he was called upon to pay the amount' Previouslyalso,petitionerwasissuedanotherdemandnotice datedol.os.2olginrespectoftheSameserviceconnectionfor theperiodfromll.o2.2o18toll.o4.2o19forRs.6,35,5o2l-.

4.2. This respondent states that they are entitled to imposetariffaSpertheTariffordersissuedbytheTelangana StateElectricityRegulatoryCommission(TSERC)exercising powersunderSections62and'64oftheElectricityAct,2o03. )1 \ t. t. 6 The c.ntention of petitioner that they obtained registration with the Incustrils Department of the state Government and under the Gcods and Service Tax Act of the central Government is not binding on these respondents as they shalr have to categorize the service connections based on the activity stipurated in the tariff orders. The activity being carried on by petitioner is not a manufrrcturing activity and the printing activity falls under LT _ I[ comrnerciar category and therefore, billing has to be done in the sai'l category. It is also stated, petitioner seems to have relied on the renewed LT Agreement dated 0s.og.2019 which is apparerLtly obtained by suppressing the earlier demand notices; thereforo they cannot be permitted to rely on the said agreement to contend that authorities have treated their service connection as that falling under LT-III industrial. The category of service has to br: arrived at ils per the tariff order basing on the acti'ity that is being carried on by the consumers. petitioner relying on the tariff orders for the year 2ort-r2, is trying to misguide this Court, whereas the applicable tariff order is 201g_19. 4'3' tt is further stated that petitioner submitted representation aggrieved by the demand notice impugned to the Divisiona' Engineer, who, by proceedings dated 24.06-2020 rejected the said representation and arso informed petitioner 7 that if it is aggrieved by the said order, it has to file an Appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Operations within 30 days from the date of its receipt, however, without exhausting the said remedy, petitioner calne up before this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is tiable to be dismissed'

5. Petitioner also filed the reply denying the averments d inthecounter.Further,itisstated,theofficialsofthelst respondent does not have any expertise and competence to decid.e as to whether a consumer is carrying out any manufacturing activity or not' The presumption of the 3'd respondent that petitioner's activity comes under printing category is sheer hypothetical one' inasmuch as petitioner is producing self-designed poly film by rolling the poly filrn with non-adhesive col0urs. It is further stated that the issue raised hereinisnomoreres-integrainviewoftheorderpassedinWrit PetitionNo.43668of2022datedo5.|2.2o22basedonthe judgment of the Hon'lcle Apex Court in Hinduston Petroleum Corporation Ltd. o. Ilnlon of Indial ' After this Court passed the interim order in the 6. above writ Petition, on 24.06.2020, petitioner stopped its ' 2ot6 (2)ALT (DB) 349 t. t. 8 manulacturing activity; in view of the same, uid.e letter dated 15-06.2022, they addressed the 4trr respondent for deration of its loa<l from 84 to s Kw to provide lighting load to petitioner,s premis:s; further uid.e letter dated 20.06.2022 addressed to the 4ft res;:ondent, requested to stop the blling; later uide retter dated j 5.Lo-2o22, to give effect to the derated road of s Kw followecl by reminder retter dated 3L.ro.2o22, however, respondent paid deaf year to the requests made by petitioner. 6' 1' It is stated, as 1 Kw road is sufficient to meet the lighting facility ro petitioner's unit, by letter dated 04.o2.2023 petitioner requested the 3'a respondent to reduce its load. It is relevant to submit here that condition No. s.g.4.2 of the General rerms and conditions of supply of the lst respondent deal with deration of contracted maximum demand of consumer', as per which, if a consumer seeks reduction of its contracterl maximum demand, he can do so by issuing one month strltutory nodce in writing expressing his intention to derate his load- petiti<lner at the first instance, gave a statutory notice dated Ls.o6-2o22 seeking reduction from g4 to 5 Kw and in te.ms of the .bove provision, the contracted road got derated tc, 5 Kw by Ls.o6-2o22 and from then onu,ards, petitioner's contracted Ioad shall be deemed to be treated as 5 t 9 KW instead of g4 KW. Similarly on 04.02.2023' petitioner gave statutory notice requesting for reduction of its load to 1 Kw, hence,byoperationofdeemedprovision,petitioner,scontracted toadshallbetreatedaslKWinsteadof5Kwwitheffectfrom O5.O3.2O23, but respondents, for no reason' are squatting on theissueconvenientlybillingpetitionerunnecessarilyata higherlevel.Fromthedateofissuingstatutorynotice,petitioner never crossed 1 KW load' but on the other hand' respondents are resorting to bill petitioner at minimum level by demanding petitioner's contracted load as 84 KW'

6.2. tt is also stated, the lis involved in the preset case is nomoreresintegrainviewoft}reorderpassedbythisCourtin Makkariga Cotton and Oll Trading Compang' I{ondamaduguu.TransmlsstonCortrtorationofA.P.Limited, tlgderobad2whichdecisionwasreliedonbythisCourtinWrit Petition No. 225OT of 2Oll' tn the counter filed by the Assistant Divisional 7. Engineer, it is stated, petitioner submitted a representation for derationofloadfrom84to5Kwinoctober2022,buthasnot registeredanyonlinecomplaintasstipulatedionClauseS.9.4.2 ofGTCS.Itisalsostated'petitionerhasarrearsof 'zoool+; ALT 192 ? l0 Rs'31'23,609/- up to February 2023; they paid cc bills under LT category-Ill instead of LT category-Il, hence accumulated arreart; are to the tune of Rs.35,3g,9og up to July, 2023. It is further stated, petitioner has to approach the consumer Grieva.ce Redressar Forum under Section 42 of the Erectricity Act, 2o03 in respect of their grievance in writ petition No. g9o4 of 2o2(t as the dispute is in regard to the bilr raised by the responcients. As petitioner has not availed the remedy, writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. arone.

8. Heard Sri D.V. *.*4r.r. Babu, learned Senior counsel on beharf of Sri G. chandrasekhar Rao, rearned counsel 'br petitioner as welr as sri R. vinod Reddy, the then learned Standing Counsel for TS TRANSCO. t. t, 9' Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, ir. may be noted that the activity carried on by petitioner at its prcmises constitutes omanufacturing, of self_ designed i:ory firm by the process of roring with non-adhesive colours, isr not supported by any technicar materiar or expert certification demonstrating transformation of raw material into a distinct commercial product; whereas respondents have consistently contended, based on murtipre inspections including *f i- I l1 those by the Detection of Pilferage of Energr (DPE) Wing, that petitioner has been engaging in a printing activity using roto- grauure machines on plastic films - an activity that squarely falls under *commercial" use, as classified under LT Category-ll of the prevailing Tariff Order 2Ol8-19 issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC). It is well settled that categorization under the Electricity Tariff has to be based not on how the consumer describes itself for other statutory purposes (such as Udyog Aadhaar or GST registration), but on the actual nature of the activity being carried on at the premises, &s per the applicable tariff classification determined by the Electricity Regulatory Commission.

10. Petitioner, in the reply affidavit, though disputes classification of service connection by asserting that the act of applying non-adhesive colour to poly film involves a manufacturing process, it may be noted that in the absence of persuasive evidence showing any material transformation, the said activity remains well within the scope of commercial usage' The petitioner's reliance on the renewed LT category-lll agreement dated 05.08.2019 is misplaced, as it is the specilic contention of the respondent-authorities in the counter-affidavit -.t t. t2 that such agreement was entered into without full disclosure of prior inspection reports and provisional assessments. 11. Furthermore, this Court finds merit in the submis:sion of respondents that petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy under the statutory framework, including filing an Appeal under the Electricity Act, 2003 against the order <rf the Divisional Engineer dated 24.06-2020, and approaching the consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42. The principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies is well recognised, particularly in matters involving billing disputes and tarilf categorization under the Electricity Act. The court is of the vit:w that therr: are no extraordinary circumstances shown t. by petitirner to warrant direct invocation of writ jurisdiction in the face ,:f a clear statutory alternative. L2. This cotrrt in a summary proceeding under Article 226 cannot decide the questions of fact, namely, whether petitioner:'s actual usage - printing on poly film using Roto Gravure machines - is a manufacturing activity or commercial activity under the applicable tariff order (201g-19), and whetleer there wars suppressi<ln/misrepresentation by petitioner at the time of c'btaining service, and whether deration request w.as procedureilly valid or acceptable, and also the validity of back- billing. Irr view of the dispute involving electricity usage ? I I t. 'l 13 classification and the scope of usage by petitioner for the alleged manufacturing using non-adhesive coating to poly films, and also the questions of fact that can be efficaciously remedied in the statutory Appeal, this Court is of the considered view that bypassing a statutory remedy of Appeat is not justifiable. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitions by relegating petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

13.Accordingly,WritPetitionNo.Sgo4of2o2ois disposed of, with liberty to petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal before the consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within three weeks from the d.ate of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are permitted to raise all the contentions sought to be raised before this court. The interim order shall continue till filing of statutory Appeal. As regards the issue of deration, it is not in dispute t4. that petitioner made Apptication for deration of electricity supply in October, 2022; however, it is contended by the respondent - authorities in the counter that petitioner has not made on line application as stipulated. under clause 5-4-9-2 of the GTCS. Petitioner seriously disputes the necessity of srrbmitting on line Application as per the said clamse. tn this l4 conne(:tion, it is relevant to refer to the said clause which reads as under: " 5-9-4-2- Deration of cMD or terrntnation of Agreement in respect of HT supplg: The consumer may seek reduction of contracted maximum demand or termination of the HT Agreement after the expiry of the minimum period of the Agreement by giving not less than ,ne month notice in writing expressing his intention to do so. However, if for any reason the consumer chooses to derate the cMD or terminate the Ag.eement, before the expiry of the minimum one year period of the Agreement, the cMD nill be derated or the Agreement wirl be terrninated with effect from the date of expiry of the initiar one year period of the Agreement or after expin' o[ one mor-rth notice period whichever is later. The compan-\'ca.l also ternrinate the HT Agreement, at any time giving one month notice if the consumer violates the terms of the :{T Agreement, or the GTCS or the provision of an_v raw touching the Agreement including the Act ar-rd rures macre there trnder, and A.p. Electrir:ity Reforms Act, r99g. or-i termination of the HT Agreement, the consunler shall pay all sums due under the Agreement as on t.e date of its terrrrination.,' I I 15- From a perusal of the above clause, it is clear that there is no mandatory stipuration of on tine Apprication and it is an adriritted fact that petitioner made Application in october 2022.In that view ol'the matter, the excess charges levied since october 2022 by deeming the petitioner's connection under LT- II category cannot be said to be in accordance with law; rnore so when it is the specific contention of petitioner that his usage is within the derated capacity. petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the dt:lay on the part of respondent authorities in acting on the Appli<:ation made by petitioner long ago. *\*" 15 -l Reliance on earlier judgments' including t]le L6. d,ecision tn Morkkorriga Cotton qnd Oil Trading @mpang' does not merit consideration' as the factual matrix of the present case - particularly the nature of manufacturing activity undertaken by petitioner and failure to follow procedural requirements distinguishes the present case from trfilrkkrrriga Cotton(supra)' as *Iokkariga Cott'on (supra) was adirectdisputeduetonon-complianceofcontractualobligation and it does not address the speciflrc context of electricity classification based on actual usage' L7. tn that view of the matter' respondent authorities shallverifytheactualusageofpetitionersincethederation t t Applicationinoctober2o22andaccordinglylevythechargeas per actual usage' Writ Petition No' 18493 of 2ol23 is accordingly, disposed of' No costs' 18. Consequently' the miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closed' ,,TRUE COPY,, SDT. C.DEEPIKA MIT NEOISTRAR AS OFFICER To

1. 2

3. 4 5

6. 7 8 -& SA HIGH COURT DATED:118/09/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.l3904 OF 2020 AND 184!93 of 2023 :?, I HES T4 € \; u| 23JAilz{ffi t o.,.. '|' .1'l ..)l DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PE'fiTIONS WITHOUT GOSTS 1v