Kwality lce lndustry v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

Kwality lce lndustry, D.No.19-2-2'.11tc, Ramnasthpura, Near Zoo Park, HVJ.rlOrO - 500 OOi'nep. by ils Proprietor Sri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Rijeshw, ar Lal Agarwal, aged about 43' .....RESPON DENT/WRIT PETITIONER

#2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary (Energy), Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 063.

#3. The Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana, 1st Floor, 33111 KV Sub Station, beside Hyderabad Boats Club, Hyderabad - 500 063. t,T,f"UiilT'ft petitionundersection.,u.,#f :t"?':H5}::J:;tlo*'l the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated09.7 .2025 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in W- P No. 19617 of 2025, in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2026 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 respondent officials to restore the power supply of service connection bearing No. M3009491 in W.P.No. 19617 of 2O25. Gounselfor the Petitioner : Ms. NISHTHA Counselfor the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY Counselfor the Respondent No.7 : - The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HI(;H COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO.l96l7of 2025 THE IOTH DAY OF APRIL,2O26 " Between: Kwality lce Industry AND The State of Tr:langana and 6 others ORDER: ...Petitioner Respondents This wri. petition is filed seeking the following relief: " ... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Ccrtiorari by calling record of Appeal No.14 of 2015-26 on the fite of Hon'ble Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana and set aside the award dated 30.06.2025 along with the orde: of the DE, Charnrinar passed vide letter No.DEE/ OP/ CHARMINAR/ TECHNTCAT./ I.IYD/D.NO.O7I2025 daterl 04.04.2025 including claim of Rs.!1,72,4621- pertaining to additional charges claimed by the Respondents from March, 2005 to February, 2025 and direct to issue revised C.C.Charges bills from March,2005 to Fe bruary,2025 in compliance of Clause VII 7.1 (ixii) of Re:gulation 5 of 2016 and ....."

#2. Heard Ms. Nishitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Ple:ader for Energy for respondent No. t and Sri N. Sreedhar RY,J w.P 19617 2025 Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos'2 to 6 Perused the entire record-

#3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a consumer of respondent Nos.2 to 6 of LT III Category service connection bearing No.M300g4gl situated at Door No.l9-2-2lllC, Ramnastupura, Near Zoo Park, Telangana. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of ice blocks' The respondents issued CC charges bitl for billing month of March,2005 dated 08.03.2005 other than monthly cc bill of Rs.52,455/- showing an amount of Rs.1,10,8 l7l- as arears and levied an amount of Rs'2,5231- as additional charges without furnishing any details and without any prior notice. The petitioner paid the CC charges bill as on February, 2005' Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court vide Writ Petition No.5451 of 2005 and an interim order dated 17-03'2005 was passed in w.P.M.P.No.7217 of 2005 of W.P.No.5451 of 2005, wherein, the petitioner was directed to pay only monthly CC charges of p.s'52,4551-' Prima facie, it was determined that the claim of Rs'[,10,8171'is wrong billing and the same was to be verified at the time of final hearing' Thereafter, the petitioner paid only CC charges after deducting additionat charges which were levied illegally every month in violation of this Court's order. The respondents raisecl CC charge bills from the month of 2 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 March 2005 to February 2o25,levying additional cc charges bills every month without fumishing any details of their claim of additional charges' The respondents have levied massive amount of Rs'1L,72,461/- towards additional charges from March, 2OO5 to February, 2025- The writ petitioner dr.rring the pendency of W.P. No.545l of 2005, in addition to monthly CC charges, paid amount of Rs.80,000/- on 05.11'2011, Rs.60,0001- :,n2l.o4.2ol t, R1.18,000/- on 28.03.2013 and Rs-18,740l- on 3 I .05.2013 i.e., total amount of Rs.1,76,7 40/- against the disputed amount of Rs.l,[0,817/-. Vide order dated 08.10.2014, this Court in W'P'No'5451 of 2005 dir,:cted the respondents to defer demand of Rs'1,[0,8171-, to issue a noti,:e to the petitioner within a period of 3 months, to give an opportunity of submitting representation and then to pass appropriate orders for recovery of alrears. From 08.10.2014 up to 15'02'2025, the respondents have not taken any steps to issue notice' Left with no alternative, the petitioner fited W.P.No.4 741 of 2025 about the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in compliance of orders dated 08.10'2014 in w.P.No.54jil of 2oo5.This court disposed of w.P.No.474l of 2025 with a direction to consider the representation dated 22.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of impugned notice dated 17.01 .2025 and J5.02.2O25 and to fotlow principles of, natural justice by giving an 3 RY,J w.P t9617 2025 opportunity for hearing. The DE, Charminar, in compliance of the orders dated 25.02.2025 in w.P.No.474l of 2025, issued Letter No.DEE/Op/Charminar/Technical/ Hyd/D.No.2 I 49124, dated I 1.03 .2025 with a demand for payment of Rs.[4,27,0971- instead of the disputed amount of Rs. 1,10,8 17 /-. The petitioner was directed to appear for hearing on 15.03.2025 and after one adjoumment, on 22.03.2025, hearing was conducted. The DE, Charminar disposed of the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2025 directing to pay an amount of Rs.12,40,4511- upto March 2025 as per ledger balance. The petitioner approached Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum-2 (CGRF-2), challenging the order passed by the DE, Charminar by preferring C.G.No.03t2\25-26lllyderabad South Circle. An award was passed vide Order dated 31.05.2025 by CGRF to the effect that complaint is regarding non-implementation of High Court order and therefore, expressing inability to deal with said subject, the complaint was rejected- Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached Vidyut Ombudsman vide Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 and the same was disposed of vide Award dated

30.06.2025. In Appeal No. t4 of 2025-26, the Vidyut Ombudsman directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,8 6,4591- in 10 equal 4 RY,J w.P t9617 2025 monthly inr; tallments from 05.07.2025 to 30.04.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition is preferred.

#4. The oetitioneCs case is that payments made by a consumer as per Clause 7 of Code of Practice have priorities. Firstly, to adjust the payment towards arft)ars of CC charges, then towards arrears of additional charges, surcharge u'hich is undisputed, then second priority towards payment of current month CC charges, followed by current month additional charges surcharge. While so, the respondents have repeatedly adjusted the payment made by the petitioner towards CC charges, towards disputed additional c:rarges multiple times during the period between March 20A5 to February 2025. [n grounds of the writ petition, it is pleaded that this Court had deferred payrnent of arreztrs of Rs.1,l0,817l- but the same was not considered as observed in this court's order dated 25.02.2025 in W.P.No.474l of 2025. Further, it is case of petitioner thar the Vidyut OmbudsmarL failed to consider the adjustment of Rs.7,ll,68l/- in additional charges account in violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice on payment of llills by consumer. The adjustment of amount of Rs.7,l1,681/- of the respondents' ledger shows due amount in CC charges, which was actually pai<l of,f every month and subsequently additional charges were levied on those impugned CC charges and thereby, respondents 5 RY,J w.P 19617 7025 accumulated the impugned additional charge of Rs.11,72,,462l- illegally' The petitioner pleaded that additional charge of Rs. I1,72,462l- claimed in the CC charge bills from March 2005 to February 2025 is not correct and in violation of court order dated 17.03.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.72l7 of 2005' The Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider the amount paid by the petitioner for Rs. 1,40,000/- on 2L .O4.2Ol1 and Rs.36,740l- on 3 I '05 '2013 due to disconnection of power supply illegatly against disputed amount of Rs.[,L},}lll-. The petitioner pleaded that the disputed amount of Rs.l,l},8l7l- is already paid and therefore, additional charges from 2l.o4.2}tl to February, 2025 is incorrect. tt is further contented that Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider this court's order dated 25.02-2025 in Wp No. 4741 of 2025 in recording the fact that this Court's order dated

08.10.2014 in w.P.No.545l of 2005 and recorded that respondents issued notice dated 20.10.2014 served in person by Registered Post without veriffing the original documentary evidence of the respondents- tt is claimed that the respondents created fatse documents to cover up their lacuna. In 2015, it is the petitioner who approached the respondents with written representation dated 19.06.2015 to comply the Court order in W.p.No.S+St of 2005, dated 08.10.2014. In view of the foregoing, the 6 RY.J w.P 19617 2025 petitionerprayedthattheorderofVidyutombudsmanandtheDE, Charminar be set aside. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed counter affidavit to the effect that

#5. the petitioner is a consumer of electricity with the respondents' For the month of August 2002, a bill was raised for Rs.1,22,739l- under status .door lock' i.e. whenever, a meter reader went, the premises of the consumer wls closed and not available for taking meter reading' The average consumption was automaticalty taken and bill for an amount of F(s.|,22,73g1.. was raised. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Accounts Offrcer, General Revenue Circle, Mint Compound and the bill was revised by deducting Rs.tl,g22l'for an amount of Rs'1,10,817/-' However, du,e to system error, in September,2002' the bill issued under Status ,03, tbr Rs.(-)l,2},t}6l-(negative amount) as the amount was withdrawn t'wice. The system was showing excess balance and the Same wasreflecterjasnegativealTearsofRs'1,30'019/-'Theconsumerdidnot pay the monthly charges but utilised the alrears with adjustment of excess amountdur.ingtheperiodSeptember,2oo2toApril,2003.This discrepancy was discovered during audit conducted in the month of f"bruury, 2005. There was shortfall amount of Rs'1,10,817/- and the same was added in the bill of February, 2005- Aggrieved by said bill, the 7 I RY,J w.P 19617 2025 petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.5451 of 2005, which was disposed of in the year 2014 with a direction to issue notice and then to give an opportunity of hearing before making the demand for payment. Accordingly, the respondents issued notice dated 20.10.2014 under acknowledgment. There was no response from the petitioner. The respondents issued another notice dated 15.05.2022 and the petitioner submitted representation dated 17.02.2022. The Assistant Accounts Officer gave details of the bills of the year 2002, which were rectified in the year 2005. The petitioner was requested to pay the pending amount with surcharge amounting to Rs.10,03,206/-. The petitioner did not pay said amount and therefore, the respondents disconnected the connection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.474l of 2025, which was allowed directing the respondents to consider restoration of power supply. Then, representations were submitted on 22.01.2025- In conformity with principles of natural justice, opportunity for hearing was given and notice dated 11.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner for a personal hearing on22.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,4,27,097l- upto February 2025. The petitioner did not pay the amount of Rs.[4,27,0971- but approached Consumer Grievances Redressal Forurn (CGRF) for redressal. CGRF rejected the I RY,J w.P 19617 202s complaint ''ride order dated 31.05.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached Vidyut ombudsman by filing Appeal No.l4 of 2025-26 an,J said appeal was disposed of vide order dated t4.04.2025 directing tht: petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,86 ,45g/-to be paid in l0 equal monttrly installments commencing fiom 15.07.2025. The petitioner again chose not to pay the installments and approached this court by filing writ petition. The respondents pleaded that all the facts and reasons given were consiclered by Vidyut Ombudsman while passing the impugned award. Further, the amount dues were ordered to be paid in l0 equal monthly installments. As such, there is no irregularity or illegality in passing of ttre award. The respondents pleaded that in a writ of certiorari, this Court cannot make a roving inquiry on facts decided by fact-finding authorities and can interfere only when there is an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record but cannot be an appeal. It is pleaded that the petitioner is simply trying to avoid payment by dragging the issue over past 20 years in spite of having complete details of the issue. As such, sought dismissal of the writ petition.

#6. The leamed counsel for petitioner argued that the respondents have failed to adhere ro the directions given by this court in w.p.No.545l of 2005, wherein the disputed amount of arrears of Rs.l,tl, gl7l- are 'j -- 9 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 deferred. Since said amount was deferred, no additional charges would be attracted on the disputed amount as the respondents did not give notice for said disputed amount nor passed any speaking order in compliance of orders of this Court. Further, the learned counsel for petitioner argued that an amount of Rs.7,11,861/-has been adjusted in additional charges in violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice. When the petitioner paid CC charges only in compliance of this court orders, the Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider the adjustment of Rs.7,11,861/- with the respondents showing ledger due amount in CC charge account and additional charges were tevied on the impugned CC charges and thereby, the respondents accumulated the impugned additional charges of Rs' 11,72,462l- illegally' The petitioner argued that additional charges of Rs.1L.,72,462l- claimed on the CC charge bills from March 2005 to February 2025 is not correct and that same is in violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice on payment of bills by consumer. Further, the amounts paid by the petitioner from the year 20l l were not considered. The petitioner argued that no notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by this court in w.P'No'5451 of 2005 dated 08.10.2014. Though a pleading is made about issuing notice on ZO.1O.ZOi4, said notice was served without veriffing documentary evidence. The respondents did not file the original documents of 10 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 registered posts first or in-person served notice along with written representatic'n dated I 9.06.2005.

#7. The learned counsel for respondents argued that complete details about the manner in which arrears have been calculated are furnished to the petitioner in compliance of this court's order in W.P.No.545l of 2005. An opportunity for hearing was given and thereafter, the D.E., Charminar has passed order dated 09.04.2025 directing to pay an amount of Rs.12,40,451/- upto March 2025 as per ledger balance. Subsequently, the petitioner hr:rein challenged the same vide Appeal No.l4 of 2025-26 before Vid5'ut Ombudsman and said appeal was disposed of by considering merits of the petitioner's case in detail by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,4591- against the Demand notice issued for Fi.s.14,27,0971- tt is argued that facility was given to the petitioner tc, pay the affears in l0 installments commencing from

15.07 .2025. 'the petitioner herein did not comply with the order of Vidyut Ombudsman but approached this court. [t is argued that the sole intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings which it had been doing from 20 years, in spite of providing details as to the manner in which the arrears have been accumulated. In that context, the learned Standing Li .,i;M RY,J w.P 19617 2025 Counsel for respondents relied upon order of this court in Writ Petition No.3l 163 of 2023,dated 22.07.2024, wherein, it is held as follows: *8. In the absence of petitioner.'s challenge to the orders of CGRF which was affirmed by the ' Award dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No.2 of 2023, this Court is not inctined to delve upon the allegations levelled against the respondents by petitioner nlore particularly with respect to the contention of petitioner that in the CC bill for December, 2021, the Maximum Demand (MD)/Total Consumption (KVA) has been incorrectly shown and charged as 28852, whereas as per Settlement Statement, the highest recorded MD was 28316 as the said issue was already dealt with extensively and adjudicated upon by the authorities stated supra."

#8. The above ratio is not applicable as the petitioner herein not only challenged the award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman but also challenged the award passed by CGRF and therefore, there is no issue about the writ perition being not maintainable. It is held that this Court is not inclined to delve upon the allegations levelled against the respondents in the CC Bill, when said issue has been dealt with extensively and adjudicated by the CGRF as well as the Vidyut Ombudsman. This finding is partty applicable to the facts of the present case as wetl in view of the respondents giving notice to the petitioner through D.E., Charminar with coyfrete details of the manner in which alrears of Rs- 14,27,097/- has t2 RY,J w.P 196t7 2025 been arrived. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted and award was passed by the D.E. ,\ggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the CJRF f,ollowed by Vidyuth Ombudsman. The Vidyuth Ombudsman has dealt with the issue in detail and reduced the arrears to Rs.9,8 6,4591'with a direction to pay the arrears amounts in 10 instalments. Therefore, it is argued that orrce the concemed authorities have dealt with factual aspects, this Court under the writ jurisdiction of certiorari cannot delve upon said issues in the manner of an appeal. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for responderits relied upon the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sr:iences and another v. Bikartan Das and othersl, wherein, it is held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Cgnstitution, more particularly for issuing a writ of certiorari, the High Court does not exercise powers as an Appellate Tribunal. The only purpose of issuing a writ of certiorari is when the order is considered to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but not for the purpose of substituting its views with those of the inferior tribunal. Further, it is held that certiorari shalt be issued to correct elrors ofjurisdiction i.e. excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction or to correct a patent illegality. A writ of certiorari, beiirg a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court with ' (zoz:)scconline s(l 996 13 RY,J w.P 19617 ]ozs respecttojudicialorquasi-judicialfunctionsbyanotherauthority. Itis arguedthatthereisnoallegationonthepartofthewritpetitionerwith respecttoeitherexerciseofexcessjurisdictionornon.exerciseof jurisdictionorapatenterrorapparentonthefacloftherecord. Itis arguedthatthewritofcertiorarimaynotbeissued, incasethewrit petitionerintendstochallengethefindingoftheVidyutombudsmanand thefindingoftheCGRFwithrespecttofactualissuesadjudicated.As such, contentedthatthecurrentwritpetitionisnotmaintainable. g.Aperusaloftherecordshowsthatthedemandnoticewhichwas challengedbythewritpetitionerwasissuedintheyear2005.Saidnotice demandingpaymentofRs.l,l0,8lT/-waschallengedinW.P.No.545lof

2005.Bywayofinterimprotection, thisCourtinW.P.M.P.No.T2\Tof 2005inW.P.No.545lof2005,datedl7.03.2005,directedtherespondents todeferthepaymentaStoarrearsanddirectedthepetitionertopay monthlyCCcharges. Thereafter, themainpetitionwasadjudicatedby passingorderdated0S.t0.20l4directingtherespondentstoissuenotice andgiveanopportunityofpersonalhearingandthen, topassanorderon the arrears to be paid. Thereafter, according to the respondents' notice was issuedtothepetitionerincomplianceofthiscourtsorderon20.l0.20l4, .J buftherewasnoresponsefromthepetitioner. Tothecontrary, thecaseof 14 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 the petitioner is that the respondents did not comply with the order passed by this cotrrt and no notice was issued. Therefore, the petitioner approached rhe respondents vide letter dated 19.06.2015 to comply the order of this Court in W.P.No.545l of 2005, dated 08.10.2014. But there was no res, ponse up to 15.02.2025. Thereafter, vide order dated

15.02.2025, the power supply to petitioner was disconnected. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.474l of 2025 was filed and the same was disposed of with a dir:ection to the respondents to comply with the order of this Court in W.ll.No.5451 of 2005. In compliance of said order, the D.E., Charminar issued letter dated 11.03.2025 for Rs.14,27,0971- showing the arears amouLnt up to February, 2025. According to the petitioner, said amount ought to have been for Rs.l,l0,817l- but not Rs.14,27,097/-. ln this context, it is alleged that there is a direction to attend hearing on

15.03.2025 ,md upon concluding the hearing, the D.8., Charminar directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.lZ,40,45ll- up to March 2025 as per ledger balance. The petitioner contends that their plea to deduct the arnount paid in the interim was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached CGRF, which disposed of the matter without adjudicating rnerits of the case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner then ' approached Vidyut Ombudsman and said authority has passed the 15 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 impugned order. According to the petitioner, there is violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice on payment of bills

#10. At first, the petitioner herein approached this Court by filing W.P.No.545l of 2005 challenging the inclusion of a sum of Rs.l, 13,34Ol- under the head of arrears and additional charges in the bill dated

08.03.2005. This Court vide order dated 08.10.2014 deferred the affears of Rs.l,l0,817l- inthe said bill granting liberty to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner with regard to payment of arrears, within a period of three months. Due to non-compliance of said order and respondents issuing disconnection notice dated 15.02.2025, the petitioner filed W.P.No.474l of 2025, wherein, this Coum vide order dated 25'02'2025 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner pertaining to restoration of power suppty to petitioner's unit within a period of one week. However, the respondents without complying the said order too had straight away issued notice dated 11.03.2025 demanding payment of Rs.14,27,Og7l-. In the said notice, there is a mention about the issuance of notice on 20.09.2014,, however, that notice is not pursuant to orders of this Court dated 08.10.2014 in W.P.No.5451 of 2005. [n the said notice, it is mentioned that in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P.No.474l of 2005, dated 25.02.2025, the respondents requested the 16 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 petitioner to attend personal hearing. Even though there was a direction of this Court to defer the arrears in the monthly bill issued on 08.03.2005, there was clrlim of Rs.11,72,4621- by DE., Charminar, with calculation of additional charges, ACD surcharge, ED interest and R & C penalties which is against the Clause 7 of Code of Practice. However, the CGRF did not cons, ider the complaint of petitioner. [n appeal also, the Vidyut Ornbudsman without considering the Clause 7 of Code of Practice \ \ modified the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by DE., Charminar directing the petitionr:r to pay Rs.9,86,459l- by deducting 50yo of the total additional surcharge amount of Rs.2,53,9921- from Rs.[2,40,451/- that was demand,:d by DE., Charminar t I I l. As ri; ghtly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have adjusted the monthly CC charges and subsequent payments made by the petitioner towards arrears which was deflerred by this Court ttrat too again levying additional charges on them, which is against Claur;e 7 of Code of Practice. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman is liable to be set aside.

#12. [n vie:w of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugnecl award dated 30.06.2025 in Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman and the respondents are directed to restore the L7 RY,J w.P 19617 2025 power supply to the petitioner unit forthwith. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to D.8., Charminar to consider the monthly payments and interim payments that were made by the petitioner from March, 2005 to February, 2025 as specifred in Clause 7 (Adjustment of Bill Amount) of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) Code of Practice on payment of bills by consumers and to take further steps. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed SD/. A. SREENTVASA ASSISTANT REG //TRUE COPYII To SECTTON OFFICER 1 ited, Hyderabad Telangana, Secretariat, Telangana Southern power Distribution Company Hyderabad - 500 064. The Principal Secretary, (Energy), Govern State of Telangana at Hyderabad - S0O 063. 2. Ihe Assistant Engineer, Operation Chand ari, Hyd (South), Telangana Southern power Distribution Company 3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Miralam, Hyd (South), Limited, Miralam Tank, 4. The Assistant Accounts officer, ERo, sararjung, Hyd (south), Terangana -5ub Southern Power Distribution Company Limiied, 1st- Floor, Saiagung Station, Hyderabad - S00 064. 5. The Divisionar Engineer,, operation, charminar, Hyd south, Tetangana Southem Power Distribution Company Limited, Punja Shah, HyJlrabad - S00 064. 6. Ih" superintending Engineer,_ operation, Hyderabad, south, Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company timitiO,tOthFloor, Vasanth Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001. 7. The Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana, 1st Floor, 33111KV Sub 8' Two CC's to G.P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at station, beside Hyderabad Boats club, Hyderadad - 5oo 063. Hyderabad. (OUT) ' 9. One CC to Ms. NISHTHA, Advocate tOpUCl

10.one cc to sRr N.SREEDHAR REDDY, Advbcate (opuc) 1 1 . Two CD Copies SA GJP \ qJx i i ---!.F:.;.: HIGH COIURT DATED: I 010412026 ...,..-. ,-ii':[E O A r'.,.. - l-) i) \\\ 11 1$ (i) + ORDER { DE} WP.No.19617 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o e."e\9 R \5u o'J'