B'pOcL ropuci v. two CCs to Gp For -'H ilff '

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 all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 19.04.2024 in o.P. No. 7612015 passed by the 1st respondent in respect of the 2nd respondent including disconnection of petitioner's power supply pending disposal of the above writ Appeal WA NO: 890 OF 2 025 writ Appear under crause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order daled 31ro7 12025 passed in w. p. No- 12440 0f 2024. on the file of the High court. Between: M/s Navadurga Biilets (p) Ltd, (tvlBN-725) Mothighanapur. Baranaqar Mandar. Ma haboobnasa r Districi ir"p dv Mr",s,;s- D;;;i;;. sir.#fl;l'ffflii[iff AND 1

2. 3 4 The Telanoana State Electricity Re-gulatory Commission. rep. by its Secretary, Red Hills Hyderabad, felanga'na Siai;.- ' '""""''"' Ine Southern Power Distribu-ti9n C.gpplny of Telangana Limited rep. by its and tvlanagins Director. rrllini Cffiouni ilyoeraoao, Teta.ngaha S|]i5rm The Supenntending Engineer, Operation the Southern power Distribution company of rerandana"Limrteo, -rvrinaoob;;r;;;'ivl"jhrb;;b;r#'"".,",, District, Telanqa na The Senior A6counts officer, operation, the southern power Distribution Company of Tetanoana umiteoi rr,lafraobi,orJg"Ji,'rvirnaboobnagar District, Telanoa na The State of Telanoana. rep. by its prl. Secretary. Energy Department, Telangana Secreta-riat, Hyciera6aO. -Stat" -State lA NO: 2 OF 2025 .RESPONDENTS 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated .l 9.04.2024 in O.p_ No. 7612015 passed by the 1st respondent in respect of the 2nd respondent incruding disconnection of petitroners power suppry pending disposar of the above writ Appeal WA NO:8 91 oF 2025 writ Appeal under crause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 31.07.2025 in W.p No. 13128t2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s Jairai rsDat Limiter, prot No. g. phase-ilr. r.D.A.. Jeedimetra, Ir/edchar District, Tir ta n s a n a State. ref oy' ii. M, ; ;;;;'ij ; r;"",# s"^"3 ffi ,...^ 11 AND 1 I:: I",i3'fl'rl?,:Li: ?:flffi:L:B?:l3l", commission rep bv its secretary

2. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, IVlint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, the Southern Power Distribution Compahy of Telanlanilimited, R.R North, Secunderabad,Telang-ana State.

4. The Senior Accou nits Officer, Operation, the Southern Power Distribution

5. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Energy Department, Company of Telangana Limited, R.R. North, Secunderabad,Telangana State Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad ...RES'.N,ENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 . 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 19.04.2024 in O.P No. 76t2015 passeci by the 1st respondent in respect of the 2nd respondent including disconnection of petitioners power supply pending disposal of the above writ Appeal WA NO: 892 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Dated31t0712025, Passed in W.P. No. '16885 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Sarwottam lspat Limited. (Service Connection No MCL-302) Plot Nos B and 9, lndustrial Estate, Medchal, Malkajgiri District Rep. by its Director, Subhash Goenka ...APPELLANT AND 1 2 3 4 E The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Red Hills, Hyderabad. Telangana State. The Souiher:n Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep- by its Chairman and Managing Director, IVIint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State- The Superintending Engineer, Operation Crrcle, The Southern Power DistribJtion Compainy oT Telangdna Government Limited, Medchal, Gunrock, Secunderabad, Telangana State The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Government Limited, IVedchal, Gunrock. Secunderabad, Telangana State. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Energy Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RES..NDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 1910412024 in O P. No. 7612015 passed by the 'lst respondent in respect of the 2nd respondent incruding disconnection of petrtioner's power suppry pending disposar of the above writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. K. JAYASREE (ln all the Writ Appeals) Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI p. PRASAD sc FoR TGERC (tn alt the writ Appears) Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDy, (tn att the writ Appears) sc FoR TGSPDCL Counsel for Respondent No. S: Gp FOR ENERGY (ln all the Writ Appeals) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos.888 890 891 AND 8920F 2025 I I COMMON TUDGMENT: (Per Hon ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals 1S squarely covered by the cofiunon judgmen! dated 20.08.2025, rendered by this Court in W.A.No.881 of 2025 and batch and following the said judgment, the present appeals also deserve to be disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the said fact.

3. In view of the same, following the common judgment, dated

20.08.2025, rendered by this Court in W.A.No.881 of 2025 and batch and for reasons alikq both the Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in these appeals .l shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SO/.A.V.S. PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, gorpinyoiiil;;-lrcore,nmeniLi;,H",r1".$1fr I lffi:s:1'7; lil?,T3?,state Erectricitv Resuratory commission Red Hirs : iiii,i],i:;:iilfl"T'il,?.r,'B"od;?",1i! .r.r!,!,?i:'.:yil?tjr;!{y;.comoanv 3 rhe Superintendinq Engine", oi,Li"ii"n'6ii""ll. the Southern power .gi'Jfr !::J.*T"ilX;"J.t"$s;;e;"J;."#;3ntii,it"a-'nr""u.r,-,ilz,n..o.r.. 4. tne Uenror Accounts Officer. Operation, The S . Secunderabad, Teiangana State. ' i::.5i:?:Jiifr%'ff[i3 i [tE JE ls !flt [*l!?:isBjtflTg:J88i^'J,"ca,e 8 one cc ro sri r.r s=earrbr. nggdy s-Cf;Ii6B'pOcL ropuci " v. two CCs to Gp For -'H ilff '"?fl9J"il*"'."i$ 8?li[?,'Ii't :ll,'i|[km frr,rl,. Enersv Department, state or reransana, reransana $p"o;";DJ.t',oution H;I"'ir, ropUC,

10. Two CD Coores MBC BS

4.4 Lr"L-U !- HIGH COURT '. \ DATED: 21108t2025 ,( ) 2 4 sEP m25 '1 * COI\4MON ORDER WA NO: 888, 890, 891 AND g92 OF 2O2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS ebl1 1r{ a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos .881. 882 and 883 of 2025 COMMO N IUDGMENT: (Per ITan'bh -\'i J*sttrc Altltinad Kanar S haL'ili1 Since the issue involved in a1-[ these writ apPeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disPosed ot bv lvav of this common judgment.

2. \(1.A.No.881 of 2025 is fited aggrieved by the ordcr clatcd

31.t)7.2025 passed in W.P.No.12304 of 2024 bv the lcarrrcd Single Judge.

3. $7.A.Nos.882 and 883 of 2025 are filed aggrieved b1'the common order dated 31.07.2025 passed in W.P'No'12440 ol 2024 md batch by the learned Single Judge.

4. Heard Sri D.V.Nagariuoa Babu and Sri Avinash Desar, learned Senior Counsel repre senting Ms. I(Jaya Sree and Yaseen Abbas I(han, Iearned counsel apPeariflg for the appellants, Sri P.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TGERC appearing tbr respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing 7 Counsel tor TCISPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and learne<l ,\dvocate Gencral appearin[J for respondent No.5.

5. For thc sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.gg1 of 2025 arc cliscussed hereundcr.

6. Learned Scnior Counsel appearing for the appeilanrs had conten(lecl thar rhc 1., rcsponde nt_Telangana Statc Electricirr- Rcgulaton' Commission has fixed cross Sr-rbsidy Surcharge and other charges in respect of High Tension Industrial (.aregorv oi 11 KV and 331(V for the ,nancial year 2015-16 t'irle order dated 27.03.2015 without giving any opportuni6. to the appellants. Aggrieved bt. ihe said order, the appellants h,r\.-e approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.266()!t of 2015 and batch and the learned Single Judge allowed the saicl rvrit pe rit.ion s ujde order dated 29.1 0.20i B. Challenging the same, TS DISCOMs have preferred Inrra_Cor,rrt Appeals i.c., \\'.,\.No.1672 of 2019 and, barch ancl this Court dismissed rhe same t,ide judgment d,ated, 1L.03.2019. Aggrieved by the said t,rrders passed by the learned Single Judge and rhc Division Bench, the appeliants have approached the Apex Court b.v filing S.L.P(C ).Nos.14047 14066/20L9 and the Apex Court aide ord.er dared 07.1.1.2023 remitted the matter to thc 1" respondent-Regulatory Commission to decide the issue atter follorving due process prescribed undet law and affording opportunity to the Parties concerned.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appcaring for the appellants had lurther contended thar a hearing cook place beforc the 1" respondent c>n 20.02.2024, whereas TS DISCOMs have filed counter only a[ter hearing i.e., on 01-04.2024 and aFter {rling counte rs, no he aring took place and without giving anv opportunity to the appellants, the 1" respondent has once again enhanced Cross Subsidy Surcharge from Rs.1.29 paise to Rs.1.33 pilse aide order dated 19.04-2024 and that the 1" respondent ought not to have passed the same. Aggrieved b1' thc said orde r, the appellants have approached this Court b1' filing \[.P.No.l23O4 of 2024 arrd W.P.No.12440 of 2024 and batch and learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions aide ordets dated 31.07.2024. Chalienging the same, the Present rvrit appeals are file d. 4

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contended rhat as per proviso.j to Secrion 42 e) of the Electricitv r\ct,2003 (tbr short 'rhc Acr), surcharge and cross . subsidics shall be progressiveh,. reduced in the manner as may be specified lry the Stare Commission. Instead of reducing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge, the 1., respondent_Regulatoq, Commission l-ras enhanccd the Cross Subsidv Surcharge, which is conrrarv ro proviso 3 to Secdon 42 e) of theAct and thrs fact was not properly appreciated b1. the 1., respondenrRegulatory Commission. Learned counsel had further conrended that DISCOMs I'rave claimed Cross Subsidy Suriharge of Rs.0.30 paise, insteacl of confirming the same, the 1,,respondent on its own has enhanced the Cross Subsidy Surcharge from Rs.1.29 paise t,r Rs.1.33 paise, s.hich is contrarl. ro law. The 1,, respondent, on its orvn, cann()t cnhance thc Cross Subsidy Surcharge than wl.rat u,as claimecl by the DISCONIs and this facr was nor properlv appreciated by rhe learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. ) 09 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contended that DISCOMs in their proposal dated

07.02.2015 has claimed only Rs.0.30 paise Cross Subsidl' Surcharge and thereafter, no fresh proposals were submitted by the DISCONIs sceking enhancement of Cross Subsidy Surcharge and therefore, the question of enhancing the Cross Subsidv Surcharge does not arise and the Cross Subsidv Surcharge cnl'ranced by the 1" respondent on its own is alscr contrary to lau.. ThereForc, aPpropriate orders be passed in these appeals by setting aside the order dated 19.04.2024 passed bv the 1" respondent and also the orders dated 31t.07-2025 passed bv the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12304 of 2024 and !fl.P.Nos.12440 of 2024 and batch and allow the writ appeals.

10. Learned Advocate General appearing for the 5'h respondent had contended that the 1" respondent has given every opportunitv to the appellants and after giving opportunlry only, the 1" respondcnt has passed the order of enhancing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge dated 19.04.2024 and the learned 6 Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ peuuons with an observadon tl-rat righ r of appeal is ar-arlable ro rhe appellants as per the Act. The appeilants instead of preFerring rhe appeals have approache d this Court. Lcarned Adr.ocate General has also drawn our attention to the order passcd by the Apcx (iourr, wherein rhc Apex Court in its order dated 0t.11.2023 in SLP(C)Nos.1.1047-14066 of 2019 has gir.en a finding rhat the appellants should har.e apprcachcd thc appellatc authorifi., instead of approaching rhe Apex Courr and that the Apex Court has set aside the orders passcd bv rhe learned Single Judge ancl the Division Bench and remrtted the m-atter to the 1., respondent-Rc.gulatory Commission ro dccide the issue after following due process prescribed under law ancl affording opportunity to the parties concernetl u.irhin three m()nths. Ii the appeilants arc agyieved bv the orders passcd by thc Regulatoq, Commission, thcy should approach the appellatc: authoriry. Therefore, the learned Single Judgc rvas justified rn dismissing the writ petirions. 7 11,. I-earned Senior Counsei appearing for the appellants had further contended that the appellants would approach the appei.late authorirv within a Period of eight (08) weeks. Til-[ the appellate authoriry considers the stay applicarion to be filed by the appellants, let there be a stav o[ the order dated 19.04'2024 passed bv the 1" respondenrRegulatory Commission.

12. Learned .\dr.ocatc General appearing for the 5'h respondent had contended that if the appellants are willing to prefer an appeal, Iet the time be flxed for considering the stay appl-ication to bc filed b1' the appellants.

13. Having considered the rival submissions made by the iearned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that since the appellants have exPressed their view that they would prefer an appeal along rvith the stay application before the appellate authority within a period of eight weeks, the appellants are permitted to file the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copv of this order' The order dated 1,9.04.2024 passed b,v the 1" respondent- Regulatory Commission shall not be actcd upon for a pe riod of eight 8 \veeks. In the rnterregnum, rhe appellants mllst pursue their remedies of preferring an appeai before the appe)lare aurhoriry,. and seek stav of thc order and the appellate aurhorin. shall ensufe that some orders are passed on thc sta1. applicarion. If thc appeal is fiIed, the appellate aurhorifi. shall number the same and consider the stay application as cxpeditiouslr. as possible. Since thc appellants are pursuing their rcme dies in a u,,rir Court, the benefit under Secrion 14 of the Limitarron Act,1 963, shall be exrended to them.

14. With rhe above observarions, rhe \\,,rir Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Misceilaneous petitions, if anr,, pending shall stand closed JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Date: 20,08.2025