The High Court · 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 the Further Proceedings pursuant to the order da ted 1g.04.2024 in o.p.No. 76 and 7712015 passed by the 1st Respondent in respect of the 2nd respondent incruding disconnection of petitioners power suppry pending disposar of the above writ Appeal, against the Appellant. i l/ I I lA NO: 3 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 the operation of the common order dated 31.07.2025 passed in w.P. No. 15109 of 2024 and batch by restraining the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from levying and collecting cross subsidy surcharge for FY 2015-16 together with retrospective interest lrcm 27 .O3.2O15, and/or from taking any coercive action including disconnection of supply against the Appellant. Counsel for the Appellant M/s CHALLA KIRANMAYEE Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: SRI P.PRASAD, SC FOR TGERC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL W.A.NO:959 OF 2025 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 31to712o25 passed in w.P.No.24712 ot 2024 and pass on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Greenpark Hotels and Resorts Ltd., (Formerly known as Diana Hotels Limited) 2rid Floor, Corporate Otfico, 7-1-25' Greenlands' Begumpet' Hvdera6ad. Reoresented' bv its Senior Manager Legal and Admin, Sri V6nkata Mbnikvbla Rao Vedruri. S/o late Sri V V Subrakmanyam, aged 51 years, R/o. SO-ZASB1IO1S, Road No.4, Geetanagar, Old Safilguda' Secunderabad ...APPELLANTMRITPETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Energy Department' Telangana HYderabad. ' Iillis,l?:,r.ff'*l'1":xffF,lil3l"fl,o??Hi','i?:i;"on:"JJ:;JJ ot?'8;Jl[, 3. 3ilt#m F6wer Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, TGSPDCL - its Secretary Conioiate Office. Central Secretaiiat,-Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - sOO'ozZ Rep. by'its Chairman aAd UeqqSi$ Director + in6 Supiii,it nti,is engineir, TSSpDCL; BEniara Hills Circle, GTS Colony, s. ine'stnioi nccounts officer, TSSpDCL, Banjara Hi[s circte, GTS colony, Telanoana. Telangana' ...RESP.NDENT' 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 the operation of the Common Orderdated 31.07.2025 passed in W.P. No.24712 ol 2024 and batch by restraining the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from levying and collecting Cross Subsidy Surcharge tor FY 2015-16 together with retrospective interest from 27 .O3.2015, and/or from taking any coercive action including disconnection of supply against the Appellant. lA NO: 3 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 the 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 petitioners power supply pending disposal of the above writ Appeal, against the Appellant. Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. CHALLA KIRANMAYEE Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.PRASAD, SC FOR TGERC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 TO 5: SR! N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT TGSPDCL \ THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos.957 959 0F 202s COMMON IUDGMENT! (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 involvecl in the present appeals is squarely covered by the common judgment, 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, foltowing the common judgrnent, dated

20.08.2025, renderecl by this Court in W.A.No.881 ot 2025 and batch and for reasons alike, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY/ SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To 11-4-660, Vth Fl'o;i Singareni Bnailn' i{"d'[iG' itvierabad' Telangana - l.TheSecretary,TelanganaSta.tgElectricityRegulatorvCommission,DoorNo' 2. ?fl3 Bt*,*an and Marygqrg^D11ector' Southern. power Distribution Companv of Telansan" r_tii"i' -'rd![otL 6;;FAe office, central secretariat' Kha iratabaO, frv,i ei"U'"0, fehngana -' 500 022 3 rhe Superint"n'oi;itruil;;,'it5Focl' dperation Circle' Raiendra Nasar 4. one cc to rrrrrs. utiilr-I riRANt"tAYEE, Advocate [OPUC] 5. one cc to SRt p:ijiiA-sab-, s_cjon rGERc [oPucl 6. one cc to sRl i"'sir"dEDHhCREEDi' SCFdC ToSPDCL toPucl 7 X Road's, HYderabad' Telg1gqq9, dated 20'08'2025' rendered ili*l'l:!'F:" -^:^li ?;"#ll?t';tfl".it' by this court in wA'No'uul or z PSK. o \ \ I n I HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 COMMON JUDGMENT Nos.957 AND 959 ot 2025 THE,S t4 C)o 02sir2[[ (,1 !-' (', t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS HOUT COSTS n I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAI{D KUMAR SHAVILI AI{D HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos.881.882 and 883 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Pcr Hon'bh Si Jnsice Abhinand Krnar Shauib) Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. \X'.A.No.881 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 3't.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.1.2304 of 2024 by the learned SingleJudge.

3. W.A.Nos.BB2 and 883 of 2025 arc filed aggrieved by the common order dated 31,.07.2025 passed rn W.P.No.1,2440 of 2024 and batch by the learned SingleJudge"

4. Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu and'Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. KJzya Sree and Yaseen Abbas Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri P.Prasad, Iearned Standing Counsel for TGERC appearing for respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing 2 Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing for respondent Nos'2 to 4' and learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No'5'

5. For the sake of convenience' the facts in W'A'No'881 of 2025 are discussed hereunder' Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants 6. had contended that the 1" respondent-Telangana State Electriciry Regulatory Commission has fixed Cross Subsidy surcharse and other charges in respecr of High Tension IndustrialCategoryoflll(Vand33KVforthcfinancialyear, 2015-16'rlideorderdated2l'03'2}l5withoutgiving2;try' opporunity to the appellants' r\ggrieved by the said order' the appellants have approached the High Court by filitg' W.P.No.2660gof20l5andbatchandthelearnedSingteJudge allowedthe,,saidwritpetitionsuideorderdated29.l'0.201'8. . Challenging the same, TS DISCOMs have preferred Intra-Court Appeals i.e., W'A'No'1672 of 201'9 and batch and this Court dismissed the same uide ludgment dated 17.03.201,9. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the learned Singte Judge and the Division Bench, the appellants have approached the Apex Court I l: t; J by filing S.L.P(C ).Nos.14047-1,4066/2019 and the Apex Court uide order dated 07.1,1.2023 remitted the matter to the 1" respondent-Regulatory Commission to decide the issue after following due process prescribed under law and affording opportuniry to the parties concerned

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contended that a hearing took place before the 1', respondent on 20.02.2024, whereas TS DISCOMs have filed counter only after hearing i.e., on 01,.04.2024 and after 6.ling couriters, no hearing took place and without giving any opportunitl' to the appellants, the 1't respondent has once again ehhanced Cross Subsidy Surcharge from Rs.1l29 paise to Rs.1.33 paise aide order dated 1,9.04.2024 and that the L', respondent ought not to have passed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12304 of 2024 and W.P.No.12440 of 2024 and batch and learned SingleJudge dismissed the said writ petitions uide orders dated 31,.07.2024. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals are filed. 4 respondent-Regulatory Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants had g. further contended that as per proviso 3 to Section 42 Q) of the Elecuicity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act)' surcharqe and cross subsidies shaii be progressively reduced in the manner as may be speci{ied by the State Commrsston' Instead o[ reducing the Cross SubsidY Surcharge' the 1" .Commission has enhanced the Cross Subsicly Surcharge' which is contrary to proviso 3 to Sectio n a2 Q) oi the Act and this fact was not properly appreciated by the 1" resPorldent-Regulatory Commission' Learned counsel had further " contended that DISCOMs have claimed Cross Subsidy Surcharse of Rs'0'30 ,paise, instead o[ confirming the sarne' the 1" respondent on its own has enhancecl the Cross Subsidy Surcharge from "Rs.1.29 paise to Rs'1'33 paise' which is contrary to law' The 1" .respondcnt, on its own' cannot enhance the Cross Subsidy Surchargethanv'hatwasclaimedb'vtheDISCONIsandthisfact was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ peuuons' - j Ele ;,1 'lKI ,7 il, -5 0g. 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 Subsidy Surcharge and theretfter, no fresh proposals were submitted by the DISCOMs seeking enhancement of Cross Subsidy Surcharge and therefore, the question of enhancing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge does not arise and the Cross Subsidy Surcharge enhanced by the 1" respondent on its own is also contrary to law. Therefore, aPProPriate orders be passed in these appeals by setting aside the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1,, respondent and also the orders dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1.2304 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.12440 of 2024 and batch and allow the writ appeals.

10. Learned Advocate General appearing for the 5th respondent had contended that the 1" respondent has glven every opporrunity to the appellants and after gitrng oPPortuniry only, the 1" respondent has passed the order of enhancing the Crosi Subsidy Surcharge dated 19.04.2024 and the learned 6 Single Judge has righdy dismissed the writ peritions with an observation that right of appeal is available ro rhe appellants as per the Act. The appellants instead of preferring the appeals have approached this Court. Learned Advocate Cleneral has also drawn our attention to the order passed by the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court in its order dated 07.1.1..2023 in '::SLP(C)Nos.1,4047-1,4066 of 201,9 has given a finding that the appellants should have approached the appellate authoriry, instead c,f approaching the Apex Court and that tlre Apex Court has set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Divrsion Bench and remitted the marter ro the 1,, respondent-Regulatory Commission to decide the issue after following due process prescribed under law ancl affording opportuniqv to the parties concerned within three months. If the appelJants are. aggneved by the orders passed by thc Regulatory Commission, they should approach the appellare authoriry. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was iustified in dismissing the writ petitions. F 7

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contended that the appellants would approach the appellate authority within a period of eight (08) weeks. Till the appellate authority considers the stay application to be filed by the appellants, let there be a stay of the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1't respondent-Regulatory Commission. 1,2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the 5e respondent had contended that if the appellants are willing to prefer.an appeal, let the time be fixed for considering the stay application to be filed by the appellants

13. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned:counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that since.the appellants have expressed their view that they would prefer ^n appe l along with the stay application before the appellate authoriry 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 copy of this order. The order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1" respondent- Regulatory Commission shall not be acted upon for a period of eight .r' ,/ 8 weeks. In the interregnum, the appellants must pursue their remedics of preferring an appeal beFore the appellate authofity and se,:k stay of the order and the appellate authoriry shall ensufe that some orders are passed on the sta)'aPPlication' If the appeal is filed, the appellate authoriry shall number the same and consider the stay application as expeditiously as possible. Since.the appellants afe pursuing their remedies in a writ Court, the benefit under Section the Limitation Act,1963, shall be extend,:cl to them.

14. with the above observations, the \['rit Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICEABHINAND KU MAR SHAVILI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Dare:20.08.2025