The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI P' PRASAD (SC FOR TGERC) Counsel for the Respondent No'5: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 2to4: SRI N' SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER 1l .ii ,{ {] {i t4. $ f I i I I , I I I i i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1003 oF 2025 IUDGMENT: (['er Hon'blc Sri Justice Abhinanel Kumar Shavili) Whetr thc matter is takcn up for hearing, leamed counscl appcaring for the appellant had submittecl that the issue involvecl in the prresent appeai is squarely covered by thc common judgnrent, ciatecl 20.08.2025, rendered by this Court in W.A.No.88'l of 2025 ar.rcl batch ancl following the saicl judgment, the present appcal also cicserves to be disposed of. 2 Learnecl counsel for the respondents did not clisputc the saicl

3. Lr view of the same, following the common juclgment, dated

20.08.2025, rendered by this Court in W.A.No.881 of 2025 ancl batch ancl for reasons alike, the Writ Appeal is disposecl oI. There slrall be no order as to costs. Miscellanc'ous Appliciitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stancl close,-l SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// S CTION OF FICER To, State. State.

1. The Secretary, Telangana S^tate Electricity Regulatory Commission' Red Hills' ' Hyierabao. Te angana State' f Telanqana Limited. rep. by its , i[i;'f:I",..ft";*S:r?"',1'|li:$:",XlRi3";lpt",];i:"ti;;"1'o'o r"t'ng'n' 3 ihe Superintendinq Engineer, QPeratron',.the,i,r?"t[:lr::S?! ?:[ru::: ' c"'.0"#, l'i' i"era'rg% na I imited' sangareddy Southern Power Distribution 4 The Senior Accounts Off icer' Operati-on ''Jthe 5. The Principal Secretary' Energy Department' Telangana Secretariat' 6 Two ccs to Gp FoR ENERG', High court for the state of rerangana, at I s#r gi [ '*"*'*itigStt.izJ:]"il'"",uDcl roPUCr Companyotr.r,n,ga.ia"ri,fri"i-s."-ng,,eddyDisirict.sangareddy.Telangana State. Hvderabad [OUT] T.S .Hvderabad' i 3E u":[fl;llHi'"T':: l'oo1';1 33 0 u 2 0 2 5 re n d e re d bv t h i s ,^t g. On. CC to SRI' P /l\\ 1o.Two cD coPies " "Sr** *$,i f ?"f/ "1' BM BS { .!: { t {r. .:: .;.,.':l HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1003 of 2025 4l 't, { .{ { I I i ! 't : DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 1 10 ,7 {l I l i l HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SI{AVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos.88 . 882 an d 883 of 2025 COMMON UDGMENT: (Per I I,n'b/e .ln Jtshft Abhinanr! Kunar Sbatili) Since the issue involved in all these v/rit appeals is one end the samc, thev are being heard togerher and disposed ofby wav o[ this common judgmenr.

2. W.A.No.881 ot 2025 is Iilcd aggrieved by the order dared

31.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.12304 of 2024 by rhe learned Singlc Judge.

3. \i/.A.Nos.882 and 8U3 of 2025 are fried aggrieved by rhe common order datcd 31.07.2025 passed in $fl.p.No.12440 of 2024 and batch by the learned SingleJudge.

4. Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu and Sri Arrinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel rcprcsenting Nfs. I(Jaya Sree and yaseen Abbas I(han, 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 'i{ Counsel fol IGSPDCL appearing for respondent Nos'2 to 4' :rncl Iearned Advocate Gencral apperring t-or rcspondcnt No'5'

5. For thc salic o I conr-enicncc, the tacts in \\' A'No'881 c>f 2025 erc discusscd hcteunder. (r. Learned Senior (lounscl appearine fbr tlte appellants I-rac1 contcn:led that thc 1" rcspondent Telangana State Elcctriciw Regulaton Commisston has Fuccl Cross Subsidl' Surcharge ar-rd othcr chargcs in respcct of Fligh -fension Inclustrial (-ategon' of 11 I(V ancl 331{\' tbr the financial r.ear 2015-16 ride order dated 2i.03-2015 u'rthour giving an1- opportunifi' to the appellants. Aggrieved b1' the s'rid order, the appellants have approached the High (lou: t by trLing W.P.No.26609 of 2015 ancl batch and the lcarncd Single Judge allowecl the said $'rit petitiofls ide order dated 29'10 2018' Challenging the samc, TS DISCOIIs have pre ttrrcd Intra-Court Appeals i.e.. \X/.A.No.1672 of 2019 and batch arrd this Court dismisscd the same uide itdgmett dated 11'03'2019' Aggriei'ed [>v the saic] orders passed b]'the learned Slngle Judge and the Division Bench, the appellants have approached ttLe ;\pex Court 3 bv filing S.L.P(C ).Nos.14047-1 4066/2019 and the Apex Court uide order dated 01 .11.2023 rcmitted the matter to rhe 1,. respondent Regulatorv Commission to dccide the issue after following due proccss prescribed under law and affbrding opportunity to rhc parries conccrned.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appcaring for the appcliants had further contended that a hcaring took placc beforc the 1., respondent on 20.02.2024, rvhcreas TS DISCOMs havc filed countcr onh' after hearing i.e., on 01.04.2024 and after filing counters, no hearing took place and without grving any opporruniry ro 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 19.04.2024 and that the 1* respondent ought not ro have passed the same. Aggrieved by thc said order, the appellants have approached this Court by fiIing W.P.No.12304 of 2024 and V.p.No.12440 of 2024 and batch and learned Single Judge clismissed the said writ peririons uide orderc dated 31..07.2024. ChallengSng the same, the presenr writ appeals are filed. 1 ! I I I 4

8. I-earned Senior Counsel appearing lor the apPellants had iurther contcnded that as per provisc'r 3 to Secuon '12 (2) of tlic Electricitr, ,\,:t, 2003 (for short 'thc Act'), surcharg,e and cross subsidics shall bc progessivclv rccluccd in tl're mz'nncr as [la\i be specitred bv the State Comn-rission. Instead of rcducing thc Cross Subsidv Surchargc, thc 1" respondent Regulaton' Commissic,n has enhanced the Cross Subsidl' Surchargc, rvhich is contrarv t(, pro\riso 3 to Sccuon 42 (2) olthc Act and this fact was not pronellv appreciated bv thc 1" re spondent-Regulaton' Commission. Learned counsel had furthcr contendcd that DISCONIs ha.,-e claimed Cross Subsidy Surcharg.c of Rs'0'30 paise , instea<l of conFrrming the same, the 1" respondent on its own has cnhanced the Cross Subsidv Sur':harge from Rs.1.29 paist: to Rs.1.33 paise, r.r'hich is contrarl'to lau"' The 1" respondent, on its own, cannot enhance thc Cross Subsidy Surcharge rhan rvhat rvas claimed b1' the DISC()NIs and this fact was not propedy appreciated bv rhe iearncd Singlc Judgc and the learne d Single Judge has dismissed the writ Petirions. 5

09. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contcnded that DISCONIs in their proposal dated

07.02.2015 has claimcd only p5.g.36 paise Cross Subsidy Surcharge and thcreaitcr, no lrcsh proposals u,cre submimed by the DISCONIs seeking cnhanccment of Cross Subsidl, Surcharge and therefore, rhe question of enhancing rhe Cross Subsidy Surcharge does not arise and the Cross Subsidy Surcharge e nhanced [r1. the 1., r:espondcnt on its own is also contrary to la-,v. Thereforc, appropriatc orders be passed in drese appeals by setdng aside the ordcr clated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1.. respondent and also the orders d:tted, 31,.07.2025 passed by the learned Single.f uclge in W.Ir.No.12304 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.12440 of 2024 and batch and allow the writ appeals.

10. Learncd Advocare Ge ncral appe aring for the 5,h respondent had contcnded that thc 1., respondent has giwen every opporruniry to the appellants and after giving opporruniry only, the 1., respondent has passed rhe order of enhancing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge dated 19.04.2024 arrd the learned 6 Single J udgc has rrghtly dismissed the u'rit Petiti'rns with an obserwation that right of appeal is avaiiable t() the rPPellants as per thc .\ct. The appellants tnstead oi prcferrir-rg rhc appeaLs have approeched this Court. Learned Advocare Gcneral has alscr dras,n our atte nLton to the order passed b1' the Apex Court, rr-he rcin thc Apcx Court in its orde r dated 07 1 1 2023 rn SLP(C)Nos.14O4i-14066 ol 2OI9 has givcn a tinding that the appcllants shoulcl have approached the appellatc euthoriq, instcad of epptoacl'ring the APex Court and that tl'r c Apex Court has sct asiclc the orders passed by the learncd Sinllic Judge and thc Dn-isiorr Bench and remitted the matter 1cl the 1" responclent-ltegulatory Commission to clecide thc issue afrer ibliovrr-rq d,-re Process prescribed under lau,, and affording opportunitv ro the parties concerned within three llonths' If thc appellants arc aggrieved by the orders passecl b1' the Rcgulatorl' Commrssic-,n, thel' should approach the appellate alrthorit\' Thcrefore, the lcarned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the rvrit pe tiions. 't

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing tor the appellants had further contended rhar the appeilants would approach the appcllate authoriry within a periocl of cight (08) u,.ccks. Till rhe appellate authoriry considcrs rhe stat. application to be f,iled bi, the appellants, let there be a sray of the orcler tlated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1.r respondenrReguiatory Commrssion. 12. Learned Aclvocatc General appeanng tbr the 5,h respondenr had contended that if the appellants arc willng to pre fcr an appcal, le t the timc be flxed ror considering rhe sta1, application to be filed by thc appcllants.

13. Havrng considered t[_re rival submiss.ions made by the learned counsel on eithe r side , this Court is of the view that since the appellants har.e expressecl their view that they would prefer an appeal along with rhe staJ, applicarion before the appellate authoriry within a pcnorl of eight weeks, the appeliants are permrtted to file the same [,irhin a period of eighr rveeks from rhe date of tece.ipt of a copy of dris order. The ordet dated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1., respondenr_ Regulatory Commission shall not be acred upon for a period of eight i I l I u'eelis. In ttre interregnum, the appellants must pursue thcir remcclies oi Jrteferring an appeal before the appcll;rte 2ruthoritv ancl seek .62'9 of the orcler and the appellate ar-rthoritv shalL e rsurc that s,)me ordcrs are passcd on thc stay aPPlication' li thc apperl rs trled, thc appellate authority shall num6cr thc same and considcr the stav applicauon as expeditioush' as possible' Srnce the appcUants are pursuing their remedies in a rvrit Court' thc bcncfit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963, shall bc crtcndccl to them.

14. \\ ith the above obser-vanons, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. \o costs. r\Iisce I ane ous Pe titions, iF any, pending shall stancl closed- JUSTICEABHINAND KUNIAR SI{AVILI JUSTICE VAI(TI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Datc:20.08.202: