The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15., CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to a) Grant an interim direction restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive steps, including disconnection of power g,upply to the Appellant,s unlt, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. i I I I I I : * Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B'MAYURREDDY'-Sr' COUNSEL' REP' FOR SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N'SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL WRIT APPE AL NO: 693 0 2025 F WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredagainsttheorder Dated30/06/2025,inlANol of 2025inWP No 17598of 2025onthefileof the High Court Between: ItI/s. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd ' Regd Off ii"oumPet HYderabad' Telangana^,- ii"Y,;ifi, n,trl Anr'itn"tn Menon S/o cohnection No BJH-588 1 87' . 103, Srinivasa Towers' boii"oro. n"P. bY its Authorized "iI*lninotrri trilehon HT Service ^6-3-1 ...APPELLANT AND 1 2 Telanoana State Southern-Power Distribution.Company Limited Reqd Off' 6- ii;!;;ffi L;*.,"IHl!:ilil","J$?l8t3i"lit'uvoeiaodc'rerangana-500063 B a n j a ra H i I I s', Gr S c o I o nv' H.."#['# ?'Ssrt'"E : flIf"% r:S:ii8 I n:l{:i" ...RESPONDENT IA NO :1 OF 2O25 petition under Section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to a) Grant an interim direction restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive steps, incruding disconnection of power supply to the Appellant's unit' pending disposal of the Writ Appeal' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B'MAYUR REDDY' Sr' COUNSEL' REP' FOR SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N'SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND TIIE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT Nos .69O and 693 of 2o25 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon,ble The Acting Chtef Justice) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request, these writ appeals were heard on admission ard interim relief.

2. Admittedly, in these writ appeals the challenge is mounted to a common interlocutory order dated 30.Cl6.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of matters, whereby a partial interim protection was granted to the appellant.

3. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Deepak Chowdary, Iearned counsel for the appellant submits that in the writ petitions, the petitioner had called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18.o6.202s, whereby the respondents have fa,ed to follow the binding Division Bench decision of this Court in W.p.No.149lB of 2OO6 and batch decided on L9.12.2023 4' The bone of contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant is that in the said batch namely in w.p.No.l4g,g of I 2 2O06, twin aspects were subject matter of chalienge' The first challenge was to the Electricity (Removal of Difficultiesl Second. Order, 2OO5 ('Order of 2005') and the second challenge was to the demards raised from the consumers of the non- conventionai energr generating companies on account of cross- subsidy charges. It is canvassed that admittedly the challenge to Order of 2005 failed as per the judgment of the Division Bench' but challenge to the demand' notices succeeded and accordingly' a1l the demand notices were quashed'

5.ItiSstrenuouslycontendedthatabareperusalofparties narnes in those writ petitions will show that in number of petitions M/s.Ind Bharath Bnergies Limited ('Generator') was the petitioner No.2. Thus, Generator succeeded in those petitions in relation to the demands and the present writ appellant is the consumer who is getting the electricity from the said Generator'

6. When the present appellant suffered the order dated 1a.O6.2O25, they Iiled the instant writ petitions and assailed the said order b)' contending that since appellant is consumer of the Generator, u'ho succeeded in W.P'No'14918 of 2006 and batch' impliedly it should be presumed that there exists a 'sanction'/'authorization' in favour of the Generator pursuant to \ .!\- i l i ,:.. : J which the petitioner were getting the electricit5r. Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in not followjng the binding Division Bench judgment of this Court.

7. Sri B. Ma;.ur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in shyam sel and Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limitedr contended that no doubt the scope of interference in an intra{ourt appeal against the interlocutory relief is limited, as per the said judgment the impugned order fa_lls within the ambit of .Intermediary, 'lnterlocutory judgment,. Hence, the writ appea-l is maintainable. To elaborate, he submits that in the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 the respondents demanded six documents from the appellant. The appellant could not furnish the following document i.e., document No.4: "The Copy of Sanction/Authorization gralted by the State Governmenr under secriol +5-aiilrdi ,1.,. Electriciw (Supply) Act, I94B for claim-ing olrn"riii* jil";;;io;;.;;ffi ;"1 Cross Subsidv surcharge under Remova.t .*;;l.;'of *.i "f "r 8 To justify this non-suppry, rearned Senior counser submits that the appellant 1s not priry to the sajd document. The document must be avaiiable with the State or the Generator ald ' unur-;/scto3 I z/zozo 4 therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the benelit of similar order passed by the Division Bench'

9. Per contra, Sri N' Sreedhar Reddy' learned Stalding Counsel for TGSPDCL, for respondents, Supported the impugned order by contending that the order is interlocutory in nature and does not have any hnal impact on the appellant lf the appellant ultimately succeed in the writ petitions the amount' which was directed to be deposited by impugned order can be refunded back' The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has not given any finding which is frnai in nature, instead' the learned Single Judge stated that the matter needs a lengthy hearing' Further' the counter is yet to be filed by the respondents' Thus' the writ appeals are not maintainable.

10. tearned Standing Counsel for the respondents piaced healy reliance on the Pou'er Purchase Agreement' dated

16.ll.2ooo,inwhichtheappellantisaparty,andurgedthat this agreement was for a period of five years from November' 2OOO. The Division Bench of this Court in W'P'No'14908 of 20o6arrdbatchdealtwiththematterwhichpertainstothe period of 2005 onwards. There is no material on record to show that the 'agreement/ consent' as per Order of 2OO5 ' was \ l I I t I t I ! i I 5 prevailing in favour of the generator or the appellant beyond 2005. Heavy reliance is placed on Ciause (21 of the Order of 2005, which reads thus; "2' Exemption from payment of surcharge on the sale :t ""ppII of etectricity._No surcharg. *oJi[. requrred ro be paid, in rerms of sub_secrion (2) ;i"a;il;; of the Act :L,,h. ete*ricit5z being sotd by',h. c;;;;iting .ornprni." wlth consent of the competent governterrt ,ra-". clause (c) of sub-secrion (1) of secrion 4s A".rir," ;i".ii.iry o",, ,oos (now repeared bv the Act), and ," ,t.li..iiicity being supplied by the distribution licensee ."-,fr.^ by the State Government under section ii oi' tfr" f.rai"., ""ltorization ll::1.]:iff,.t:r, 1e10 (now repealed by the Act), tilt the current validity of such consent or authorisations.,, (Emphasis Supplied) 1 1 . Lastly, it is submitted that there are batch of writ petitions wherein similar conditional interim protection was granted by the learned Single Judge and except the present appellant, none of the petitioners therein have challenged the similar order.

12. In rejoinder submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on various agreements to show that it should be presumed that there exists a .consent, 'salction' in favour of the Generator from whom the appellant had purchased. lVheeling agreement, dated 04.O1.1999 was referred to show that the name of the appellant _ .Srinivasa Resorts Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad', finds prace at serial No.5. i1. 6 I Thus, there is no manner of doubt that there existed a sanction/ consent/ authori zation in favour of the Generator' otherwise there u'as no occasion for the Division Bench of this Court in partly allowing W'P'No' 14918 of 2006'

13. The Parties have confined their argument 1-o the extent indicated above. 14 . Admittedly, the writ petitions are pending before the learned Single Judge and these writ appeals are directed against the common interlocutory order dated 30'06'2OO5' The relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads thus: Further, on Pert.sal of the record, it is revealed that W.P.Nos. 14918 oi 2OO6 & batch, the case of the Petitioners therein $'as that the imPugned demands raised therein for cross subsidY surcharge were 1n violation of Provisions of ElectricilY (Re moval of Difltculties) Second Order, 2O05, e\/ance of the whereas in the Present case, ents 1n roduce certatn docum ents for ent of cross e beneht of exem t1on from the main nst the action of the res In that vrew of the matter er hereinls tioners to INSlS Court is of the view that the lis ons is not covered t writ the Division Bench in its order dated 19.12.2023 oassed in W.P.Nos. 14918 of 2006 & batch d in the the ad udication of As regards the other contentions of the petitioners as well, at this stage of adjudication, this Courl is not inclined to accept the same, particularly, even befo::e a collnter affidavit is hled by the respondents' That apart. while dealine with similar matters. this Court expressed the opinion that when the petitioners are it is their pnmary dutv to pro duce all claim149_exem t1on, \ 1 l I l . l l L 7 t n shirk off their du documen the RTI Act before the a rovide the authori e S S. tions hled Insofar as the judgment relied by the learned senior - counsel is concerned. ortma facie, tii" is of the view that the said juigment is distinguishable on facts and needs an elaborate consideratilir ifl"g"ra" it. applicability, at this stage of adjudi""ai;;,; th" pr"s.nt case, for which a detailed .oo-rrt", ;fd; is required from the respondents. -Er"i In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to take a differen-t view than ah.;;; .*p.."".a Uy this Court in w.p.Nos. 16269 of rOist.i;i,; vide order dated 23.06.2025. -the ;;;s Hence there shall be an interim direction, as prayed for,. subjecr ro payment of 5OZo ;;;; demanded impugned demand "otr.." *itrrrri.* i-..ioa or o.r" week from today. Further, it is also made cLar that the payments made by the petitioner", i., pr.".,..rce to the present impugned orders, are subject to t'fr. o"t"o-e of the writ petitions and the responde-nts shafl noi ctaim any equities." (Emphasis Supplied)

15. The learned Single Judge considered the order passed in W.P.No. 14918 of 2OO6 and batch and opined that in the present case, the main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that the respondents are insisting them to produce the relevant documents to show that they are entitled to the benefit of exemption from pa5rment of cross subsidy charges. prima facie, the learned Single Judge opined that in the absence of the I f &_ 8 saiddocuments,thematterisnotcoveredbytheorderofthe Division Bench in W.P.No.14918 of 2006 and batch'

16. This is trite that in intra Court appeaf interference can be made against interlocutory order only when orders are falling under certain categories. The routine orders, which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till passing of the final jud,gment or orders which may cause inconr''enience and prejudice but do not hnally determine the rights and obligations, cannot be called as Judgment' This Court considered this aspect in great detail in W'A'No'82 of 2025 and batch, dated 18.02 .2025, and' considered the judgment of Shyam Sel and Power Limited (supra) as well on rn'hich reliance is placed by the learned Senior Cor'rnsel for the appellant. This Court in the said judgment' opined as under: '6. A careful reading of impugned order shows that the Writ Petitions are still [ending and interim order granted by learned single Judge *a= rtoi"'<;tted and applications filed *..:. dismissed' In this backdrop' it is to be for vacate "t.y seen whether these Writ Appeals can be entertained' In The Uniwersity of Hyderabad, reP' by it-" 7 . negistrar, Central Univeisity Campus (P'O), Gachibowli' ffy-rferaUa v. Sadik Hussain and Others (20 13 SCC O;t-. AP 342\, a Division Bench of this Court considered Clause 15 of the l,etters Patent and opined that it provides- an appeal from a Judgment' of single Judge in exercise of origlnat jurisdiction to a Division Bench' 'fhe previous 1rigm..,i of a Division Bench in Shah Babulat Khimji v' i.y""t"o D.Kania (1981 AIR 1786) was considered and it \ t 9 ,'judgments' for the was held that,orders falling under cdtegories (iu) and (u) are furpose of ftling appeals prouided under the Letter patent' Catigories livl "ria iii.I..a tnr", "(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of t]le case tiil its culmination in tfre frnat judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which ao noi- nnafty determine the rights arra oUlgatio.rs .i ,i'. p]rr*"." Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under: lIl At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of the parties and onlv d hen d view same does not sa as delined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. Accordin cly, the writ a ppeal is disposed of with the said observation.,, (Emphasis Supplied)

8.' . . Il Midnapore peoples, Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), on which hea'ry reliance is filaced, tt. S"p.....-6ourt freld as under: ,1.U_;_,1,:r- orders/ in terlocu tory orders passed ounng the pendency of a case, Iall under on"'o. th" other of the following calegories: (4 Orders which frnally decide a qucstion or issue in controversy in the main case. (it) Orders which finally decide an tssue which materially and directly aflects the fina-l decision in the main case (it) Orders_which hna y decide a collateral issue or quesuon wh tch is not the su bject_matter of the main CASC. (iu) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culrnination in the finJ judgment. ;1 i l I I I I I 10 (u) Orders which maY cause some inconventence or some prejudice to a Party, but which do not finallY determine tJle rights and obligations of the Parties 16. The term "judgment" occurring in clause 15 the l,etters Patent v/ill take into its fold not onlY the udgments as dehned in Section 2(9) CPC and orders J numerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other e orders which, though maY not frnallY and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or anY matters in controversy, may have frnalitY ir regard to some collateral matter' which will alfect the vital ard valuable rights and obligations of the Parties' Interlocutory orders (4 to (rrrJ above, are, which fall under categones the purpose of filing therefore,'Judgments" for appeals under the l,etters Patent. On the other (iu\ and (ul are hand, orders falling ents" for not "iud provided under the Letters Patent." of ftli CA (Emphasis SuPPlied)"

17. If the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is tested on the anvil of principles laid down in the aforesaid case' it will be clear that the impugned order, by no stretch of imagination' carr be termed as Judgment' or 'intermediary' or 'interlocutory judgment'. The impugned order shows that i) the learned Single Judge has pima facie expressed his view which does not deal with the rights and liabilities of the parties finally; ii) counter is yet to be hled before the learned Single Judge and the matter deserves elaborate hearing; iii) nc' issue which materially or substantially affects the final decision of the writ petition is decided; and ivf it does not have any impact on any collateral issue or question which u'as not subject matter of II main case. Since the impugned order is not pregnalt with any final hnding which can have aly thread relation with the rights and liabitities of the parties, this Court is unable to persuade itself with the line of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. f

18. The matter may be viewed from alother angle. If ultimately the writ petitions are a-llowed, the appellalt will get back the SO%o of the amount which is directed to be deposited by the learned Single Judge by passing the impugned interlocutory order.

19. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, at this stage has taken a pima facie plausible view ald not followed the order of the Division Bench mechanically in the absence of showing the relevant documents to establish that demand raised in these matters after 2005 relating to non_conventional enerry is on account of cross subsidy charges and is admittedly made in violation of the Order of 2005.

20. For these cumulative reasons, we decline interference in these writ appeals Iiled against the common interlocutory order. Adm-l-ssron is declined and the writ appeals are dismissed. No / T 12 order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- R.KARTIKEYAN JoINT REqSTRAR secr{rbir 8ir rcER / To, One CC to SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY' Advocate TOPUC;I One CC to SRI N'SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL tOPUCi .Two CD CoPies

2. 3 o BSR TKS ( \, I I i i l l I l I l HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 , I . I t..1 . $ I liEP 206 'ir COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.690 and 693 of 2025 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT APPEALS, WITHOUT COSTS 5c)(x