The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. K. JAYASREE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P. PRASAD (SC F,l R TGERC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: SRI N. SREEDHI,I I REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.S: AGP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.NoE .978 0F 202s I I TUDGMENT: (Per I{on'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar ShaviI) When the matter is taken uP for hearing, Iearned counsel appearing for the apPellant had submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the common judgment' ctated 20.08.2025, rendered by this Court in W'A'No'881 of 2025 ancl batch ancl following the said judgment, the present appeal also deserve to be disPosed of. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the saicl 2 J In view of the same, following the common iudgment' dated

20.08.2}25,rendered by this Court in W'A'No'881 of 2025 and batch and for reasons alike, the Writ Appeal is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs. k l Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pendi I J in the appeal shall stand closecl. To //TRUE COPY// SD/.V. KAVITHA REGISTRAR T.[ ON OFFICER Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 1 The Secretary, Telangana State Eleckicity, Regulr ory Commission, Red 2. The chairman and Managing Director, Southern porrr r Distribution companv ^ of Telangana Limited, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Tr: angana State. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operatioh, the Sout I rrri power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Sbngareddy, Sangare Jdy District, Telangana State. 4. The Senior Accounts officer, operation, the sou r rrn power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Sangareddy, Sangar: idy District, Telangana State 5 Ii,g .Principal Secretary, Energy Department, I elangana Secretariat, 6. One CC to Ms K JAYASREE, Advocate tOpUCl T One CC to SRI P PRASAD (SC FOR IGERC) tOpU: I 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court fbr the ltate of Telangana, at 9 One CC to SRl. N SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate [C)t '10. Two CD Copies Hyderabad IOUT] Hyderabad. ,UC] (Along with a copy of the order dated 20.08.2025 in W.A. I b BBi of 2025 & batch) d BM BS HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 JUDGMENT WA.No.978 of 2025 :_--- -,1 I _) 18 t,; ilF' \ '..',! DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS t t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAYILI AND HON'BI F'- SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A-Nos.881.882 and 883 of 2025 COMMON IUDGM.ENT: (Per Hoz'bb Sri J rctne Abbixaul Ktnar Shat'ili) 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. W.A.No.881 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order dated

31.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.12304 of 2024 by the leatned Single Judge.

3. W.A.Nos.882 and 883 of 2025 are filed aggrieved by the common order dated 31.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.12440 of 2024 and batch by the learned SingleJudge

4. Heatd Sri D.V.Nagarfuna Babu and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. KJaya Sree and Yaseen Abbas Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri P.Ptasad, Iearned Standing Counsel for TGERC appearing for respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing T Counsel for TGSPDCL appeating for responden Nos.2 to 4, and learned Advocate General appearing for resp< r dent No.5

5. For the sake of convenience, the facts irr W.,\.No.881 of 2025 are discussed hereunder.

6. Learned Se nior Counsel appearing for r re appellants had contended that the 1" respondent-Te1z rgana State Iilectriciry Regulatory Commission has fixed () oss Subsidy Surcharge and other charges in respect of J. igh Tension Industrial Category of 11 KV and 33I{/ for thc inancial year 2015-16 uide order dated 27.03.2015 withoLrt giving any opportunity to the appellants. Aggrieved by the sz d order, the appellants have approached the High Cour by filing W.P.No.26609 of 2015 and batch and the learnec Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions tide order datc(l 29.10.2018. Challengrng the same, TS DISCOMs have preferrec Intra-Court Appeals i.e., \rf'.A.No.1672 of 201,9 and batch ar, this Court dismissed the same uide ltdgment dated 1 1.03.20 I') Aggrieved b.v the said orders passed by the learned Single J : Ige and the Division Bench, the appellants have approached th,: Apex Court t by filing S.L.P(C ).Nos.l4047-14066/2019 and the Apex Court uide order dated 07.11..2023 remitted the matter to the 1" respondent-Regulatory Commission to decide the issue after following due process ptescribed under law and affording opportunity 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 filing couflters, no hearing took place and without giving any opportuniry to the appellants, the 1" respondent has once again enhanced Cross Subsidy Surcharge from Rs.1.29 paise to Rs.1.33 paise uide order dated 1,9.04.2024 and that the 1$ respondent ought not to have passed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1.2304 of 2024 and W.P.No.12440 of 2024 and batch and learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions uide orderc dared 37.07.2024. Chillergng the same, the present writ appeals are filed. 4

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the a rpellants had further contended that as per proviso 3 to Sectiort a2 (2) of rhe Electriciry Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act), surcha'1 c and CTOSS subsidies shall be progressi-',elv reduced in the nr nner as may be specified bv the State Commission. Instead o" reducing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge, the 1st responde r t-Regulatory Commission has enhanced the Cross Subsidv Sur: rarge, which is contrary to proviso 3 to Section 42 (2) of the Act and this fact u/as not properlv appreciated by the 1" respondcr t-Rcgulatory Commission. Learned counsel had further co r :encled that DISCOMs have claimed Cross Subsidy Surcharll of Rs.().30 paise, instead of confirming the same, the 1'! resp--rdent on its own has enhanced the Cross Subsidy Sur,: rarge from Rs.1.29 paise to Rs.1.33 paise, which is contrary tt, [aw. The 1" respondent, on its own, cannot enhance the Cr rss Subsidy Surcharge than u,hat was claimed by the DISCONIs Lnd this lact was not propedy appreciated by the learned Singl Judge and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petiti )ns. 5

09. Learned Seniot 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 thereafter, 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 confiary 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 'i7.P.No.12304 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.72440 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 opportunity to the appellants ar,d after giving opportuniry only, the 1" respondent has passed the order of enhancing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge dared 79.04.2024 and the learned 6 Single Judge has nghdy dismissed the writ petrt ons with an observation that right of appeal is available to thr: appellants as per the Act. The appellants instead of preferrinp the appeals have apptoached this Court. Leatned Advocate ()c ieral has also drawn our attefltion to the order passed by the \pex Court, wherein the Apex Court in its order dated t)'.11.2023 rn SLP(C)Nos.14047-14066 of 201,9 has given a firt ing that the appellants should have approached the appell'r e authoriq-, instead of approaching the Apex Court and that thc Apex Court has set aside the orders passed by the learned Sinl eJLrdge and the Division Bench and remitted the matter to the 1s respondent-Regulatory Commission to decide tL r issue after following due process prescribed under law a - J affording opportunitv to the parties concerned within three nr rnths. If the appellants are aggtieved by the ordets passed by tl , Rezulatory Commission, thel' should approach the appellat i authoriq, Therefore, the learned Single Judge was iustified dismissing the v'rit petitions 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" respondent-Regu-latory Commission.

12. Learned Advocate General appearing for the 5'h respondent had contended that if the appellants are willing to prefer an appeal, Iet the time be fixed for considering the stay application to be filed by the appellaots.

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 an appeal along with 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 copy of this order. The order dxed 19.04.2024 passed by the 1" respondent- Regulatory Commission shall not be acted upon for a period of eight E weeks. In the interregnum, the appellants musr pursue their remedies of preferring an appeal before the appeL rte authority and seek stay of the order and the appellate ar rhority shall ensure that some orders are passed on the stay a I rlication. If the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall nunr )er the same and consider the stay application as expeditiousl,' as possible. Since the appellants are pursuing their remedies in writ Court, the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.1)63. shall be extended to them. 1,4. With thc above observations, the rff'ri t\ppeals are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall s and closed. JUSTICEABHINAN t KUMAR SHAVILI JUSTICE YAKITI RAN[\ (RISHNA REDDY Datc:20.08.2025