The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: M/S' INDUS LAW FIRM a;;;;i for the Respondent No' 1: SRI P' PRASAD sc FoR TGERC Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 2to3: SRI N' SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLI] SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY \ \ WRIT APPEAL No.1 004 0F 202s IUDGMENT: (i l,r LIon'blc Sri Justicc Abhinanrl Kunr.r r Shavili) wl'ren tlrt' .rtrtter is taken up for hearing, l.rrrrc.ci coL,-rsc\l appeari^g for ttie'appellant had submittecr tr.rat the issue i.r,orrrecl in the prescr-rt appeal is squarely covered bv the contr-rrorr juclgnrent, dated 20.08.2025, re^dcrect by this Court i. w.A.N. gg t .f 2025 a.cl batch a.d following the said judgme.t, thr_, prescrrt appeal also cleserves to be ciisposecl of. 2 Learned counsel for the respondents clicl not clisputc the said fact.

3. I^ view of the serme, following the commo. .1urlgm.nt, clated 20.08.2025, rerrd.red by this Court in w.A.No.gg't of 2025.rr-rc1 bertch anc'l for reasons alikc, the writ Appeal is ciisposecl oi. l-lrere sl.rall Lre no order as to costs. \_.\ ivliscellz.rneous Applicatious, if auv, pt'r.rcling irr this appeal shall stand closed. D/. A. PRATHIMA PUTY REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, 1 Ti:^:.%"d:li,rFl"1?,"sfl1x..t"'i'EnX""3',i'"*Y;1".,?.: 004 fl\:fl,,?:[T':':3i'?:%N 'ili,:*t'll[; :3YaB?'#l#$3i;.i?Y'ii""J:3*[,':'t'3:'""':mPanYor . +x3 [13:?'fl #%ffit33i"::':13T3,;ir"6atio n ci rcre B an j a ra H i I I s' l:,'#H#it"R'H{i$Hc$:'.,"'.8?33*H-3otJ",".ropucl 7. Two CD CoPies BM PVL HIGH COURT DATE D :0 910912025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1004 of 2025 ,.., 57 $T 2$ffi '\:. -i:r,iirr. \:-:_-__,- ..1 , r.. j ,:.' ' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS lN- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAXITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos .881. 882 and 8 3 of 2025 8 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per IIatl'bh Ji Juttn ;lbknand knttr '\h'ttili1 Sincetheissueinvolve<linalitheservritappealsisone and the same, they are being heard together and disposed oI bv wav of this common judgment' 2' w'A'No 881 0f 2025 is frled zgg'rievcd bY the ordcr dated 31.07.2025 Passed in \1fl'P'No'12304 of 2024 bt' the learned Single Judge. !fl.A.Nos.882 and 883 of 2025 are filed aggricved b1' the 3. common order dated 31'07'2025 passed in \\'I']No'12440 ot 2024 and.batch by the learned Single Judge' Heard Sri D'V'Nagarjuna Babu and Sri Avinash Desai'

4. learned Senior Counsel representing Ms' I(Java Sree and Yaseen Abbas I(han, Iearned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri P.Prasad,iearnedStandingCounselforTGF,RCappearingfor respondent No.1, Sri N'sreedhar Reddy' Icarned Standing ') (-ounsel ti,r TGSpDCL appearing fcrr respondent Nos.2 to 4, ancl learnccl i\clvocate Gcncral appearing fbr rcspondent No.5. 5. lior thc sake of convenience, the facrs in W.A.No.gU 1 of 2025 arc discussed hereunder. 6 l-eernercl Senior Counscl appearing for the appellanrs had conrenclecl rhat the 1,. respondent_Teiangana Sratc Irlcctricitr R<:qulator v- Commission has fixed Cross Subsrdv Sr-rrcl'rarge an:l otirer charges in respect of High Tension Indusrial (-at:g.r' of 11 KV and 33I(v for the flnancial r,ear 201a-16 rirte ctrder dated 27.03.20i5 without gving anv opportunift tc the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order:, the appellants har-c approached the I{igh Court by fiLng W.P.No.2(r609 oi 2015 and batch and the learned S.ingle Juclgc allrrrved the said rvrit petition s uicle order dated 29. 10.201 g. challenging rhcr szrme, TS DISCOMs have preferred Intra-Court Appeals i.c., \\',\.No.1672 of 201() and batch and this Court dismissed the samc uide jtdgment dated 1 1.03.2019. Agyieved br. rhe said orders passed by the learned Single Judge and thc Division Bench. the appcllants have approached the Apex Court 7/ 3 b1' filing S.L.P(C ).Nos.14047 14066/2019 and the Apex Court ride order dated 07.1 1..2023 remitted the matter t() the 1" respondcnt Regulatory Commission to decide the issuc aitcr following due process prescribed under lau, and afFording opportuniry to the parties concerned.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for thc appcllants hacl furthe r conte nded that a hearing took place bcfb rc rhc i " respondent on 20.02.2024, whereas TS DISCONIs havc hlcd counrer only after hearing i.e., on 01'.04.2024 and after {lling c()unters, no hearing took place and without givrng an\: opportuniry to the appeliants, the 1" respondent has t>nce 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- the said order, the appellants have approached this ('ourt b1' filing W.P.No .1,2304 of 2024 and !fl.P.No.12440 oi 2021 md batch and learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ pctitions uide orders dated 31.07.2024. Chaltenging the same, the Present rvrit appeals are filed. 1 8 Learncd Senior Counsel appearing tbr rhe appellants had furthe r cor-r rc ndecl that as per proviso .3 to Secuon 42 (2) c>f the filccrricitr,. .\,:t, 200i (fbr short 'thc r\ct), surchargc and CTOSS subsidies shall bc progtessivclv reduced in the manncr as rrra\. bc specifie<1 bv the Srare Commission. Instead of reducing the Cross Sutrsidv Surcharge, the 1" re spondent-Regularorv Commtssion has enhanced the Cross Subsidv Surcharge, which rs contrar\. r.o proviso 3 to Secrion a2 Q) of the Acr and this fact was not pr()pcrlv apprcciarcd b1,- the 1., respondenr_Regulator\. Commrssion. I-earned counscl had further contended that DISCONIs l.nr.c claimed Cross Subsidy Surcharge of Rs.0.30 paise, ilsread of cont-rrming the same, the 1., respondent on its own has cnhenced the Cross Subsidv Surcharge from Rs.1.29 paise to Rs.1.33 paise, which is conrrary ro _[aw. The 1., respondent, r)n rts ()\r,n, cannot enhance the Cross Subsidv Surcl.rargc tharr l'hat rvas claimed by the DISCOMs and this fact was not prc'p,3rlv appreciared by the lcarned Single Judge and the learned Sinrrle Judge has dismissed the writ peririons. f 09 Learned Senior Counscl appearing ior the appellants had further contended that DISCON{s in their proposal dated 01 .02.2015 has claimed only ft5.9.39 paise Cross Subsidv Surcharge and thereafter, no fresh proposals were subn-ritted bv the DISCONts see king enhanccment of Cross Subsidv Surcharge and therefore, the question of enhancing the Cross Subsidv Surcharse does not arisc and the Cross Subsidv Surcharge cnhanccd by the 1" respondent on its own is also contran' to law. -l-herefote, appropriate orders be passed in tlrcse appcals by setting aside the ordcr dated 19.04.2024 passed b1, the 1" respondent and also the orders dated 31,.07.2025 passed b1' the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12304 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.1.2440 of 2024 and batch and allow the writ appeals.

10. I-earned Advocate General appearing ,o. ,n. tu' respondcnt had contended that the 1" resPondcnt has given evcry opportuniry to the appellants and after giving opporruniq' onlv, the 1" respondent has passed the order of enhancing the (lross Subsidy Surcharge dated 19.04-2024 and the lcarncd 6 Srngle Judge has righdv dismissed the writ pcutior-rs u.ith an obser-v'auorr r,hat right oi appcal rs available to rhe appcllants as per the Ac r. The appellanrs instcad of pre ferrins the appcals have approacl'rcd rhis Cout. l.carned Advocate Gencral has also drarvn our attention trr thc ordcr passed b1' the Apex Court, u'herein thc Apex Court in its order datcd 07.11.2023 ia SLP(C)Nos.14041 14066 of 2019 has given a fincling rhar rhe appellanrs sLLould har.e approached the appel.latc aurhoriry*, instcad ot approaching rhe r\pex Court and thar the Apex Court has set aside rhe orders passecl bv thc learned Singlc Judge and the Division llench and re mittcd the matter to the 1., respondcnt-Rcgulatorr- Commission to decide the issue aftcr follou,,ing clu,: p1s6.r, prescribed under lau. and affording opporruniry ro the parries concerne d within rhree months. If the appellants ar:e aggrievcd bv thc orders passcd b1. rhc Regulatory Commission, thev should approach the appellate aurhoriry. Therefore, thc lcarncd Single Judgc w-as jusriflcd in dismissing the rvrit pe tirions. 7 7 Lcarnecl Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

11. had iurthct contended that the appellants r'vould approach the appeLlete authorit\ rvithin a period of eight (08) weeks Till the appellate authoritv considers thc stay application to be filed by the appellants, let there be a stav of the order dated 1'9'042024 passcd bv the 1" responde nt-Regulatory Commission' f,earned Advocate General appearing for the 5'h

12. respondent had contended that if the appellants are willing to prefer an appeal, Iet the trme be fixed for considering the sta)' application to be filed b}' the appellants' Having considered the rival subinissions made by

13. the learnecl counsel on either side, this Coutt is of the view that since the appeliants have expressed their view that they would prefer an appeal along rvith the stay application before the appellatc authority with'rn 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 dared. 1,9.04.2024 passed by the 1" respondent- Regulatory Commissionshallnotbeacteduponforaperiodofeight 8 weeks. In the interregnum, rhc appellants musr plrrsue rheir rcmedics oi prcttrring an appcal be f?rrc the appellate aurhorir], and seek srar: oF the ordcr and the appellate authoriq. shall ensure that somc ordcrs are passccl on the stat, application. If the appeal is filcd, thc apperare aurhorin-shar nr-rmber the same and consider rht: srav applicarion as expcdidouslv as p<tssible. Since thc appt:llanrs arc purs.ing rheir renredies rn:r v-tit cor_rrr, the benefir unrler Scction 14 of thc Lin.ritation Acq1963. shall be cxtended to rhe m. 14 W'irtr the abor.e obserr-arions, thc \\.rit Appeals are disposed of. N,r cosrs. Miscellaneous pctitions, if an_v, pencling shall stand closed. JUSTICEABH INAND KUMAR SHAVILI JUSTICE VAXITI ITAMAKRISH NA R-EDDY Date:20.08.2025