SRI D v. NAGARJUNA BABU, SENIOR

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Gp FOR ENERGY WANo:882 oF 2025 writ Appear under crause 'r5 0f the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 31/07t2025 in V,,t p No 13127 of 2024on the file of the High Court. Between: f, i{*#l#i,'d'{1'-"#x:'slrl""1-Yi#;;ffi *5#s!fl :ut'l#ihq;i ...APPELLANT i##i:**6,*,ri,i**,* AND I

2. 3 4 5 The Telangana State Elec $[fr*{,#*hr{**#i#:,'fl ggg{,frffi,iff IAN o120F 202s petition under Section 151 CpC pra the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the operation of the order dated 1g-04_2 76/2015 passed by the Respondent No. pursuance of the said order dated 1g.04 Appellant's electricity connection, pending d IA NO: 30 2025 F Petiti on under Section 1 5.1 the affidavit filed in support of Ihe Fj.flB#?r-SeVfl:i#Hffi ...RESPONDENTS ying that in the circumstances stated in the High Court may be pleased to stay 024 in the said matter i.e., O p. No l and all consequential actions in .2024 includjng disconnection of the isposal of the present Writ Appeai CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay .tx.'& t I the operation of the lmpugned Judgment dated 31 .O7 .202 5 in W p. No j 3127 of 2025 disposing of the said writ petition as dismissed, pending disposat of the present Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Ms. YASEEN ABBAS KHAN Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI p. PRASAD SC FOR TGERC Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for Respondent No. 5: GP FOR ENERGY WA NO: 883 OF 2025 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 3110712025 in W. P No. 131 19 ol 2024 on the fite of the High Court, Between: M/s Radha Smelters Private Limited, (Formerly M/s. Radha Smelters Limited) Service Connection No. MDK-1060, Stirvey Nos 327, 328, ahl Shankarampet (Village and IVlandal) Medak Distri6t. Telangana. Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Arvind Kumar Shaw ...A''ELLANT AND 1 2 a J 4 5 The Telanqjrna 9tate.Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Red Hills, Hyderabjd, Telanqana State. The Southern Power Distribution Complny of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mini Cohpound. Hyderabad Tela'ngjna State. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, the Southern power Distribution Company of- Telan ga n-a_Limite-d, Medak District, Medak, Telanga na State. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, the Southern power diskibution 9.orP9ly of Telangana Limited, IVledak District, Medak, Tetangana State. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary. Energy Dep"artment. Telangana Secretariat, Hydera-bad lA NO: 2 OF 2025 ...RESPONOENTS 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 stay the operation of the order dated 'lg-04-2024 in the said matter i.e., O.p. No. 7612015 passed by the Respondent No. 'l and all consequential actions in pursuance of the said order dated 19.04.2024 including disconnection of the Appellants electricity connection, pending disposal of the present Writ Appeal I I // -/ ,,, IANO:3OF 2025 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 preased to stay the operation of the rmpugned Judgement dated 31 .07.2025 in w.p. No. .t3119 2024 disposing of the said writ petition as dismissed, pending disposar of the present Writ Aopeal Counsel for the Appe an 0f l3HnYi-.,l^'il?i"#'^.Jl?[couNSEL counset for Respondent No. 1: BE,Ia[Tt?t? Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Gp FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t FION'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AI\)D HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKIT'I RAMAKRISHNA REDDY .4. .88 2z d f2 COMMON TUDGMENT: (Per Hon'b/e .fi lutttce Abhitand Kttnat Shauil) Since the issue involved in all these rvrit appeals is otlc and thc same, thev are bcing heard together and disposed of bv way of this common judgment'

2. W.A.No.881 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the {xder d^rccl 31.07.2025 Passcd in WPNo'12304 ol 2024 by the lcan'rccl Single .)Lrclgc. W.A.Nos.882 and 883 ttf 2025 ate hled ag.gricvcd by thc 3. common ordcr datcd 31"01 20'25 Passecl in *'O *o -t2'i-1U "[ 2024 arrr) batch by the learncd SingleJudge'

1. Ilcard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Rabu and Sri Avinash l)csai' leat:ned Senior Counsel representing Ms' I(Jaya Sree and Yasccrr Abbas I(l-ran, lcarned cottusel appearing lor the appt:llants' Sri P.Prasad, learned Stancling Clour''sel lor TGERC appearing lor rcspondcnl No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Rcddy' Ieatnecl Standinll 2 Counsel for 'I'GSpDCL appcanng lor respondenr Nos.2 to 4, and Iearned Advocate (]eneral appeanng for rcspondent No.5. 5. F'or- the sake oF convcnience, the facts in W.A.No.ggl of 2025 arc discussed hcrcundci.

6. Leamcd Senior Counsel appcaring for the appellants had contcnde d that thc 1., respondcnt_-I clangana Satc Elecricirv Ilegulatorv Commission has fixed (,ross Subsidv Surcharge and othcr charges in respect of llrgh Iension Industrial Category of 11 KV and 331(V for rhe financial year 2015-16 uide order dated 21 .03.2015 wrthout grving any opportuniw* lo rhe appellants. Aggrieve<J by the said order, the appellants havc approachcd the High Court by filing W.P.No.26609 of 2015 and barch and the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ pcririons uirle ord,er datcd 29.10.201g. Chailenging rhc samc, T'S DISCOMs have preferre<l Intra-Court Appeals i.e., W.A.No. 1612 ol 2019 and batch and this Court dismissed rhc same uide judgment dated 1.1.03.2019. Aggneved by the said orders passed by thc learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the appellants have approachcd the Apex Court -/ b), fiLing S.l..P(C ) Nos.14047 1,4066/2019 and the Apex Court uide order dated 07.11.2023 remitted rhe marrer ro the 1., re spondcnt-Regularory Commrssion to decide thc issue after following due process prcscribed under law and affording opporruniry to thc parties concerncd. 1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had Furthcr contendcd that a hcaring took place beforc the 1', rcspondenr or 20.022024, u,'hereas 'IS DISCOMs have filecl counter only after hearing r.e., on 01.04.2024 and after hling counters, no hearing took placc and without gving any opportunity to the appellaflts, rhe 1., respondcnt has once again enhanced Cross Subsidy Surcharge flrom Rs.1.29 paise to Its.1.33 parse uide order date,l 19.04.2024 and rhat rhc 1', rcspondent ought not to have passed rhe same. Aggrievcd by the said ordcr, the appellanrs have approached this Court by filing W.Ir.No.12304 of 2024 and W.P.No.1244O of 2024 and, batch and lcarned Single Judgc drs;missed the said writ peritions uide orders dared 31.07.2024. Challengrng the same, the prescnt rvrit appcals arc hled. I 4

8. I-carned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellanrs had [urthcr conrended rhar as per proviso 3 to Secuon 42 (2) ol the Elccricirv .\cr, 2003 ([ot short 'thc r\cr), surcl.rarge and cross subsidres shall be progressively reduced in the mannc t as may bc specified bv rl-re Statc Comnlssion. Instcad of reducing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge, the 1., respondcnt_Regulatory Commissron has enhanccd rhe (}oss Subsidy Surcharge, which is contrarv to proviso 3 to Sccrion 42 (2) of the Act and this fact was flot properl;, appreciate d [1, 1[s ] st respondcnt_Regulatory Commission. Learned counsel l.rad furrher conrendcd that DISCOMs have clain-rcd Ctoss Subsidy Surcharge of Rs.0.30 paise, instead of confirming the same, the 1.r respondent on rts own has enhanced the Cross Subsidy Surcharge from Rs.1.29 paise to Rs.1.33 paise, whiclr is conrrary to law. The 1., respondent, on its own, caflnot enhance the Cross Subsidy Surchargc rhan rvhat rvas clairned by thc DISCOMs and rhis fact was not properly appreciateci by the learncd Singie Judge and tl.re learncd Single Judge has drsmrsscd the rvrit petirions. I )

09. I-earncd Senior Counsel appeating for the appellants had lurther conteflded that DISCOMs in their proposal dated

07.02.2015 has claimed only Rs.0.30 paise Cross Subsidy Surchargc and thcreafter, no fresh proposals were submitted by the DISCOMs seeking enhance ment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge and thercfore, thc quesuon o[ enhancing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge docs not arise and the Cross Subsidy Surcharge cnhenced by the 1'' respondent on its orvn is also contrary to law. 'fhercforc, appropriate orders be passed in these appeals by serung aside thc order datecl 1'9.04'2024 passed by the 1" respondent and also the orders dated 31'01 '2025 passed by thc learned Singlc Judge in W.P.No.12-304 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.12440 of 2024 and batch and ailow the rvrit appeals.

10. I-earned Advocate General appearing for the 5'h respondcnt had contended that the 1" respondent has given every opportunity to rhe appellarrts and aftct givirrg opporruuiq' only, rhe 1" respondent has passed the order of enhancing 'the Cross Subsidy Sr-rrcharge dated 19.04.2024 ,nd the learned 6 Single Juclge has rightly disrnisscd rhc writ petitio,s *ath an obsen ation rhat dght of appeal is avaiiable ro the appellanrs as pcr the ,,\ct. The appcliants insrcacl o[ prcfcr.nng the appeals havc approached tl.ris Court. Le.rrncd Advocatc (ieneral has also drawn our attendon to the or,,ler passed b1, the Apex Court, rvherein the Apex Court in its order c)ated 01 .11.2023 in SLP(C)Nos.14047-14066 of 201,9 l.ras .givcn a trnding thar the appcllants should havc approachccl rhc appcllare authoflty, instead of approacl.ring thc Apex Courr and rr.rat the Apex Court has sct asidrr the orders passcd by the learncd Srngle Judge and the Divisron Bench and r.emitted dre mamer to the 1., tespondent_Reguiatory Commission to dccide rh c issuc after following dtre process prescribcd undcr law and affording opportunity to the parties concerned wrthin three monrhs. If the appellants arc aglqricved by rhe orders passed by the Regulatory Commission, they should approach the appcllatc authoriry. Therefore, thc learned Single judge rvas justified ir.r dismrssing thc writ pctiuc,ns. ,' 't

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for che appellants had [urther conteflded that the appellants would approach the appellate authoritv within a period of eight (08) weeks' Ti-ll the appellate authority considers thc stay application to be trled by the appellants, let there be a stay of the order dared 19 04'2024 passed by thc 1" respondent-llegulatory Commission'

12. Learncd Ad','ocate Gcncral rrng for the 5'h ^PPe respondent had contended that if the appellants are wilJing to pre[er an appeal, let the rime be Frxed for considering the stay application to be hlccl by the appcllants. 1,3. Having considercd thc rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the vierv that since the appellants have cxprt:ssed their view that they would prcfer an appeal along wlth the stay application before the I i appellate atlthority wrthin a pe rkrd o[ cight weeks, the appellants are permittccl to file the sanre wirhin a period o[ eight weeks I t ftom the date of receipr of rr copy o[ this otder' The crder dted 1.9.04.2024 passed fv the 1" respoodent- Regulatory Commission shall not be acted upon for a period of eight 8 weeks. In the rntetregnum, thc appcllants musr pursuc their remedies of preferring an appcai before the appr:ilate authoritv and seek stay o[ thc order and thc appeilate authoriry shall ensure that some orders are passed on thc srav applicatrorl. I[ the appeal is fi1ed, rhe appellate aurhoriry shall number rhe sane and consider the stay applicatron as cxpediriously as possible. Srnce thc appellants are pursuing thcir rcmcdies in a writ Court, thc bcne fit under Scction 14 o[ thc Limiration r\cr,1963, shall be e>:tended to them.

14. \Xith the abovc obscn,adons, rhe Wrir Appcals are disposcd o[. No cosrs. Miscellaneous peritions, if an1,, pendins shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII S D/.A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGIST RAR D .i s ECTION OFFTCER To, 1 . The Secretarv Ta , ltsiilii ^1; d;l*t'3il,tJ'te ;;3i1:trft -iffi . lPl'393!? slltu - *.gf H#l;',.:r[rffi ff "=;r';";lffi;flij,{f ;Xi::ff:El?'#Tffi ii"?li,fifl 3gfo",ill.l,;A,ft m,il-i5lryl,f ,f*:,ff ", E rectricitv Res u ratorv com m iss io n, Red H irs, ., \# ,$ffffffiffiffiffi:::: HtGH CoURT DATED: zOtOBt2OZs '-) t o€..,,.. COMMON JUDGMENT WA NO: BB1, BB2 AND 883 OF 2O2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WTHOUT COSTS a e? Hbr