Mis. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd v. 1. M/s. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd

ITC Limited, Registered Office at 37, JL Nehru Road, Kolkata And Divisional Head Quarlers of its Paperboards and Specialty Papers Division, 106, S.P.Road, Secunderabad, Telangana,500 003, Rep. By Executive Vice President (Finance and MIS), Mr. Peter Rasquinha S/o. Albert Rasquinha, Manufacturing Unit. Unit Bollaram, Anrich lndustrial Estate, Bollaram, Jinnaram lVandal, Sangareddy. Service Connection No. SGR-602 ... RE SPONDE NT/PETITIONER 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 vaeate the interirn srders dated 1611212A21 in lA,No. 1 of 2A21 in -W.P-,No. 34344 of 2021and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for Respondents No.1&2: 3t lbtf.t=ro* REDDY, Counselfor Respondents l{o-3 : Counsel for Respondent No.4&5 : M/S.GKR ASSOCIATES W.P.No.344O5 OF 2021 B6twedn: : M/s. My Home Tycoon (Block-A), Owners Welfare Association. R/o. 6-S- 11921211 to 6, Block - Myhome Tycoon, Kundanbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 016 Rep. by its Secretary, Mr. J. Madan Mohan Rao S/o. J. Hanumantha Rao Service Connection No. BJH-786 ...PETITIONER AND

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd, R/o. 6-1-50, [/int Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500063. Represented by its Chairman and ft/anaging Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Banjarahills, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Banjarahills, TSSPDCL. 4. IM/s. S.R. Green Energy Private Limited, C/O. Y.K. Bhadakal, Near Radio Station Court Colony, Torvi Road, Bijapur Karnataka - 586102 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling Charges and lnterest amounts thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th Respondent, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the year 2002- 03 onwards vide Lr.No.SE/OP/BANJARAHILLS/D.No.93, dt.23.O7.2020, :: Lr.No.SE/OP/BANJARAHILLS/D.No.94, dt.23.07.2O2O and the consequential action of 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in monthly CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without -,__-iy1l-r_91gll9! _1nd_9onjq_ary__,!o lhe,_l_arjff oide5 o,! tle.{|e!G--f%_Fl?-0!?- 0_3 onwards, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. ' IANO: 2 OF 2022 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 allow the Petitioner to amend the cause title of the above Writ Petition with regard to the 4th Respondent by making necessary changes in the name and address of the 4th Respondent as "Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,. Rep: M/s. My Home Power Consultancy Services Limited, Address. KPX COMPLEX Station Road, Gooty, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh - 515 4O2".ln place of "M/s. S.R. Green Energy Private Limited, C/o. Y.K. Bhadakal, Near Radio Station Court Colony, Toni Road, Bijapur Karnataka -586102'. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any :coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply of the Petitioner's service connection number HT Service Connection No.BJH-786, pursuant to Lr.No. SE/OP/ BANJARAHILLS/D.No.93, dt. 2307.2020, Lr.No. SE/OP/BANJARAHILLS/ D.No.94, dt. 23.07.2020 and CC bill for the month of November,2021. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd, Fl/o. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Banjarahills, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Banjarahills, TSSPDCL. AND 1 l\4/s. l\ly Home Tycccn (Block-A.), Orn,ne!'s \./elfare ,Assoclation R/c. O-3- 1 192/211 to-6;-Block . Myhome Tycoon, Kundanbagh, Hyderabad ; Telargrana - 5OO 016 Rep. by its Secretary, Mr. J. Madan Mohan Rao S/o. J, Hanumantha Rao Service Connection No. BJH-786 ...PETITIONER/R 1 TO3

2. M/s. S.R. Green Energy Private Limited, C/O. Y.K. Bhadakal, Near Radio Station Court Colony, Torvi Road, Bijapur Karnataka - 586102 ... PETITIO NE RYRES POND E NTS ...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS -Petition under Section -151 CPG prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacatethe interimordersdated 16-12-2021 in lA No 1 of 2021 inWP. No. 3440s of 2O21 and dismisS the writ pe*tition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN ,.: .,' :..f .:.-l i .jil. -t'&S#:, ',i,*ffii, Counsel for Respondents No.1&2: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Counsel for Respondent No.4 : W.P.No.35262 OF 2021 Between: ITC Limited, Registered Office at 37, JL Nehru Road, Kolkata And Divisional Head Quarters of its-Paperboards and Specialty Papers Division, 106, S.P. Road, Secunderabad, Telangana 500 003, Rep. By its Executive Vice President (Finance and MtS), Mr. Peter Rasquinha S/o. Late Albert Rqs.qt4nha, Aqe9 about 57 years tt/anufaciuring Unit. Unit Bollaram, Anrich lndustrial Estate, Bollaram, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy, Service Connection No- SGR-602 ...PETITIONER AND

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. R/o. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063 Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 3. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. ..RESPONDENTS - Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the ,_c_i_lguqrstalcqs s-lated in the affidavit filed therewith-, the High Cou(_1pay be ;t;;;;a 6 issue a writ, direction o order or oroeis -oi" particutirtv on"-in tnJ- nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling Charges and Energy Losses thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioner from its captive Wind generating plant, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the FY 2OO2-03 onwards, vide Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/OP/SANGAREDDY/D. No. 1 1 gl2} dt. 21 tO7 t2O2O, Disconnection Notice vide Lr. No.SE/OP/SGR/SAO/AAO(HT) /JAO(HT/D.No.356/ 2021, dt. O2t 12t2021 and the consequential action of 3rd Respondent in including the tmpugned demand in monthly CC ball of the petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the ApERC for FY 2002-03 onwards, provision of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, violated of the petitioner s rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(t Xg) of t Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 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 take up the present l.A. filed in W.P No, 35262 of 2021 under the caption "For Being [Ventioned" and recall the disposal of W.P. No. 35262 of 2021 for being listed separately for hearing and disposal on its own merits; and/or to pass any other order. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply to the Petitioner's HT Service Connection No.SGR- 602 Lr.No.SE/OP/SANGAREDDY/D.No.1 19120 dl. 21 lO7 12020, Disconnection Notice vide Lr.No.SE/ OP/SGR/SAO/AAO(HT)/JAO(HT)/D.No.356t2021, dt. 02t12t2o21, and CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November,2021. Demand Notice pursuant lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution company of relangana Ltd. R/o. 6-1-50, lvint compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063 Represented by its chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSpDCL. 3. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, fSSPDCL. ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENTS AND ITC Limited, Registered Office at37, JL Nehru Road, Kolkata And Divisional Head Q.uaders of its Paperboar4g^ 4!q specialty Pqlrers Division, 106, s-p. -Road, Secundgrabad, Telangana g0.g 0q9, B"p. ey_ its Executive Vice President (Financd and MIS), [t/r. f9t9r Rasquinha S/o. Late Albert Rasquinha, Aged about 57 years Manufacturing Unit. Unit Boltaram, Anrich lndustrial Estate, Bollaram, Jinn-aram Mandal, Sangareddy, Service Gonnection No. SGR-602 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders dated 3011212021 in lA.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 35262 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition- Counsel for the Petitioner : :SRl CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for Respondents No.1to3 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL W.P. 35266 0F 2021 Between: M/s. Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Off . 6-3-906/2/8, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderbbad, Tetangana - 500_082 Re_p by itsAuthorised Representative, Sri Korilmidi Mohan Reddy S/o.-K Laxma Reddy Service Connection No. HDC-716 ...PETITIONER AND

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), R/o. 6- 1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL.

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL. --4.'-M/s.-Tri<l-entPowei-SyStemsLimited, 6-3:24\t1lt, A +tn Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 034 r, r Plaza, ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in [he affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in tevying and demanding Differential Wheeling Charges and Energy Losses on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th Respondent, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the year 2002-03 onwards vide Lr.SE/Op/HYDERABAD(CENTRAL)/D. No.935, dt.oz.O7 .2020,Lr- S E/Op/Hyd/S AO/AAO(HT)JAO/HT/D .No.49 18121-22dt. 07.12.2021, and the consequentiat action of the 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in the monthly CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2OO2- 03 onwards, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides un-constitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 1g(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply of the Petitioners service connection vide No. HDC-716, pursuant to the Lr. S E/op/HYDE RABAD(C ENTRAL)/D .No935, dt .02.07.2020, Lr.SE/op/ Hyd/SAo/AAo (HT) JAO/HT/ D.No.491B/21 22,dt.07 .12.2021 and CC bill of the petitioner for the month of Novemb er, ZO21 . lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution C.ompqly of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), R/o. 6- 1-50, lVlint Compound, Hyderabad, Tcilangana - soO 063. RepresenteiibtliJ Chairman and Managing Director

2. Jlq llp^grintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL.

3. Senior Accounts Officer; Ope-rationC'irele, Hyderabad (Central), TSSpDCL. AND 1 Mis. Y_ashoda.super.speci4ty Hospital, ofr . 6-3-90612lB, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda,. Hyderabad, Telangana - sOo oB2 Rep by its Authorised Representatlye, . s_ri Kommidi Mohan Reddy S/o. K Lixma Reddy Service Connection No. HDC-716 ... PETITI O N E FYRESPON D E N TS 2 . M/s. r ri d e n t powe r 9 v"1"f t- i,.n it"J, u.g rr* i71,:1?JH :I::'Jr: Ijl.il;:: Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telangana - S00 034 ". 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 ... RESPONDE NTS/RESPONDENTS vacate the interim.orders dated: 23-12- 2021 in lA. No. 01 of 2021 in WP No. 35266 of 2021and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN counsel for Respondents No.1to3 'r:.5i3f T!!!#f REDDY, Counsel for Respondents No.4 : W.P oF 2021 Between: Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, A Unit of M/s. Yashoda Healthcare Services Private Limited, (Erstwhile M/s. Datta Chandra Constructions Private Limited) Off 16- 10-29, Nalgonda X Roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 036 Rep by its Authorised-Representative, Sri Kommidi Mohan Reddy S/o. K Laxma Reddy Service Connection No. HDS-481 ...PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., 1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Chairman and Managing Director (TSSPDCL), FYo.6- Represented by its

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (South), TSSPDCL.

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (South), TSSPDCL. M/s-- lnd-Sarath-Fnergies Limited, R/o. Plot No. 25, -Nagarjuna P a-nfa-g uttafi yderuffi , Telang a na' 500 08 2 - Hills,

5. IVI/s. NATL Power Limited, R/o Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 082 Plot No. 25, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling Charges and Energy Losses on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the year 2002-03 onwards vide Lr.No.SE/Op/HYDERABAD(SOUTH)/D.No. 45, dt. 10.O7.2020, Lr.No.SE/Op/Hyd(South)SAOqAO/HT/D.No.195, dt. 20t11t2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without.jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2OO2-O3 onwards, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides un-constitutional. violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respond take any coercive steps including that of disconnection supply of the Petitioner's service connection vid pursuant to the Lr.No.SE/Op/ HYDERARAD(SOU (South)SAO/JAO/HT/D.NO.1 95, Dt. 20.1 1 .2021.

10.07.2020, Lr.No.SE/Op/Hyd Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN c o u n se r fo r Re s po n de n ts N o. 1 to3,r:.5i5 R E D D y, f T55 3531 Counsel for Respondents No.4&5 : W.P.No.35269 OF 2021 Between: Yashoda Hospital, A Unit of lV/s. Yashoda Healthcare Services Private Lirnited, (Erstqhile iv4is. Datta Chandra Consti'uctions- Pi'i'vate Liniiteri) Off Beh ind Hari hara Kala B haVan, S. P. -R-oad, -Secunderab=ad, TelanQa na -' SO0 003. Rell by itsAuthoriled Represe-ntative,_sri Kommidi Mohan neooy s/o. K Laxma Reddy, Service Connection No. SEC-830 ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), R/o. 6- 1-50, Mint compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - s00 063. Representeij by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer; operation eircle, secunderabad, TSSpDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Secunderabad, TSSpDCL. 4. Sree Rayalaseems Green Energy l-imited, KFX complex, Station Road, Gooty, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh - 515402 ...RESPONDENTS .t. '.::*':.' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling /Transmission Charges and Energy Losses on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th Respondent, ptirported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the year 2OO2- 03 onwards vide Lr.No.SE/op/SECUNDERABAD/D.No.282, dt. zgto6lzo2o, Lr. No.SE/Op/SECUNDERABAD/D. No.900, dt. 3Ot 1 1 12021, and the consequential action of the 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demand in the monthly CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2OO2- 03 onwards, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides un- constitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed underArticles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconneetion of power---supply of- the Petitioners service eonnection vide No.SEC- 830. pursuant to the Lr.No. SE/Op/SECUNDERABAD/D.No .282 , dt. 2910612020, Lr.No.SE/OpiSECUNDERABAD/D.No.900, dt. 3011 1 12021, and CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November, 2021. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Compqry of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), R/o. 6- 1-5O, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Secunderabad, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Secunderabad, TSSPDCL. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDE NTS AND

1. Yashoda Hospital, A Unit of M/s. Yashoda Healthcare Services Private Limited, (Erstwhile [vl/s. Datta Chandra Constructions Private Limited) Off Behind Harihara Kala Bhavan, S.P. Road, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500 003. Rep by its Authorised Representative, Sri Kommidi Mohan Reddy S/o. K Laxma Reddy, Service Connection No. SEC-830

2. Sree Rayalaseems Green Energy Limited, KPX Complex, Station Road, Gooty, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh - 515402 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER : ... RESpoNDENTS/RESPoNDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated: 23-12-2021 in lA. No. 01 of 2021 in WP. No. 35269 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for Respondents No.1to3 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for Respondents No.4 : W.P.No.35872OF 2021 Between: It//s. Quality Care qnn n lJ.,.l^--F.ad r r)rugrouqw - vvv v -Prakash Medakkar AND Road No.1, Banjara Hills, c-; n- cr^t-,.t t\r^J^r,r,^- c./^ l.)ll Ul . l\Clllul \)/(J lvlgttclA^dl ..PETITIONER

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.and 4 others, (TSSPDCL), F/o. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, l-lyderabad, Telangana -500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director 2 The Superintending TSSPDCL. Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central),

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle; Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL. 4. M/s. lnd-Barath Energies Limited, R/o. Plot No. Nagarjuna Hills, 125, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, T'elangana--500 082 5, M1s. NATL P-oryer--Llmite-4, ,B/-o, P-lot No. 25, Nagarjuna Hllls, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Telangana- 5O0 082 ...RESPONDENTS t:.: : :i++::,: l. : ,r. ,=ij::.1+: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling/Transmission Charges and Energy Losses on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th and sth Respondent, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the year 2OO2-03 onwards vide Lr.SE/OP/HYDERABAD(CENTRAL)/D No. 935, dt. O2tO7l2O20, and the consequential action of the 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in the monthly CC bill of the petitioner for the month of 'November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2OO2-03 onwards, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides un-constitutional, violated of the petitioner s rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 oF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconne-e_ttgn o[ p_oyer 9uP_P!y e{-:1!9J_9!!9!,9rE__s-9r]ice connectio_n vide No.HDC-700, pursuant to the Lr. S E/OP/HYDERABAD(CENTRAL) /D.No. 935, dt. OZ1O44O\O and CC bill of the petitioner for the month of Novemb er, 2021 . lA NO: 1 aF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., 1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana -5OO 063 Chairman and Managing Director (TSSPDCL), R/o.6- Represented by its 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL. ...PETITIONER/RESPON DE NTS AND

1. M/s. Quality Care lndia Limited, Regd. Off 6-3-24812, B-ord [o,1. Bqnjara Hills, Hydeiabad - 500 034 Rep by its Chief Operating. Offlgq Sri_Dr. Rahul Medakkar S/o. Prakash Medakkar Service Connection No. HDC-700 tvl/s. lnd-Barath Energies Limited, R/o. Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 082 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Plot No. 25, Nagar-juna Hills, 2

3. M/s. NATL Power Limited,, R/o. Plot No. 25, Nagarjuna Hills, Fanjagutta, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 082 ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated 24-12-2021 in 1A No 1 of 2021 in WP. No. 35872 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN counser for Respondents No.1to3 ,r.s|i}f REDDY, TSSBS|I Counselfor Respondents No.4&5 : -- W.P.No.35873 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Bilasraika Sponge l.ron lndia Pvt., Limited, 4-1-97O, C-403,41h Floor', Upasana - -BlockSbuja:Estate, Telangana - 500 001: Rep. 'by its'Director;-Ashish--Kumar Agarwal S/o. Prarnod Kumar Agarwal HT Service Connection No. MBN-6O3 ...PETITIONER AND

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Tela Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. and Managing Director ngana Ltd., 6-1-50, Mint Represented by its Chairman

2. The Superintending Engineer, Ooeration Circle. Mahabub-nagar, TSSPDCL Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Mahabubnagar, TSSPDCL. 3 4 M/s. Rain CH Carbon (Vizag) Limited, Rain Centre, 34, Srirragar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 50O,073 ' , . -.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated. in the affidavit filed therewith, the, High Court may be, pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the aition of the Respondents I to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling/Transmission Charges and lnterest amounts thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioners from the 4th Respondent under the Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dt. 04.11.1994, purporled to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 to 2014-15 vide Lr.No.SE/Op/MAHABUBNAGAR/ D.No.465 dt. 15.11.2021, and the consequential action of the 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in the CC bills of Petitioners for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2002-03 to 2O1B-19, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed underArticles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply of Petitioner as the Schedule consumer of 4th

15.11.2021, and CC bill for the month of November,2021. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circte, Mahabubnagar, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Mahabubnagar, TSSPDCL. ...PETIT|ONER/RESPONDENTS AND 1 M/s. Bilasraika Sponge lron lndia Pvt., Limited, 4-1-970, C-403, 4th Floor, Upasana Block, Abuja Estate, Telangana - 500 001. Rep. by its Director, Ashish Kumar Aganrual S/o. Prarnod Kumar Agarwal HT Service Connection No. MBN-603

2. M/s. Rain CH Carbon (Vizag) Limited, Rain Cent(e,34, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 073 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER .. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated 24-12-2021 in lA No 1 of 2021 in.WP. No. 35873 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for Respondents No.1to3 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for Respondents No.4&5 : W-P.N oF 2021 Between: M/s. Shalimar Roller Flour lVi'll, 15-1-503, A/9, Siddiambar Bazar Road, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad Telangana - 500 012. Rep. by its Proprietor, Vimal Kumar Jain S/o. Late Vijay Kumar Jain HT Service Connection No. SGR-043 .PETITIONER AND 1- Southern Pewel Distributiqn Qomp Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - and Managing Director any of T_ellqnganE 500 063. Represen 1 50, Mint its Chairman

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 4. Mis. Rain Cll Carbon (Vizag) Limited, Rain Centre, 34, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 073 ..-RESFO.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances s-tated in the affidavit filed therewith, the. Hlgh Crcurt may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling/Transmission Charges and,tnterest amounts thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th Respondent under the Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dt.04.1 1.1994, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the years 2OO2-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 to 2014-15 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/SGR/AAO(HT)i JAO(HTyD.No.35212021, dt. 30.11.2021, and the consequential action of the 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in the CC bill of Petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2OO2-03 to 2018-19, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply of Petitioner as the Schedule consumer of 4th Respondent, pursuant to Lr. No. SE/OP/SGR/AAO(HT)/JAO (HT/D .No.35212O21, dt. 30.1 1.2021, and CC bill for the month of November,2021 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Befuveen:.'--'

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.,, 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and [Vlanaging Directo r

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. ... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS AND 1 . M/s. Shalimar Roller Flour Mill, 15-1-503, A/9, Siddiambar Baar Road, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad Telangana - 500 012. Rep. by its Proprietor, Vimal Kumar Jain S/o. Late Vijay Kumar Jain HT Service Connection No. SGR-043

2. Mls. Rain Cll Carbon Hyderabad, Telangana (Vizag) Limited, Rain Centre, 34, Srinagar Colony, - 500 073 . RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated: 31-12-2021 in lA. No. 01 of 2021 in Wl'. No. 36929 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN cotrnser for Respondents No.1to3 'r:Ji[f T55353[ REDDY, Counsel for Respondents No.4 : W.P.No.36942 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Sunder lspat Limited, Regd. Off. D.No. 2-1-41, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500 003 Rep. by its Director, Girish Kumar Sonthalia S/o. fVlukundlal Agarurral, HT Service Connection No. RJN-842 ...PETITIONER AND Southern Power Distribution Comp 50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T Chairman and [Vlanaging Director ,dny of Telangana Ltd. and 3 Others, 6-1- elangana - 500 063. Represented by its

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 4. M/s. Rain-Cll-Carbonlvizgg) Limited, Rain Centre-,34, Sr,inagar Colony; Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 073 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ oi ma ryi_aq1gs cieciaring the action of , t.he Resp,,ondells_ _:l to3ih levying and demanding Differential WheelinglTransmission Charges and lnterest amounts thereon on the energy- consurned by the petitioner from thg ![ Respondent under the Modified Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dt.04.1 1.1994, purported to be basing on the Tariff of the APERC for the years 2OO2-03, 2003-04, 2OO4-O5, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 to 2a14-15 vide Lr.No.SE/Op/RJNRtJAotHTtD.No.4lg(j) dt. 11.11.2021, and the consequential action of the 3rd Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in the CC bills of Petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2002- 03 to 2018-19, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed underArticles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO:1 oF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply of Petitioner as the scheduled consumer of 4th Respondent, pursuant to Lr.No.SE/Op/RJNR/JAO/HT/D.No.419(j) dt. 11.11.2021, and CC bill for the month of November, 2021. lA NO: 1 oF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telanga 50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 Chairman and Managing Director na Ltd. and 3 Others, 6-1- 063. Represented by its

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Off icer, Ope ratio n Ci rcle, Sangared-d Y,.-, IS S-PEet. - ...PETITIONERYRESPONDE NTS 1 M/s. Sunder lspat Limited, Regd. Off. D.No. 2-1-41, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad, ielangana - 500 003 Rep. by its Director, Glrish Kumar Sonthalia S/o. Mukundlal Aganrral, HT Service Connection No. RJN-842

2. M/s. Rain Cll Carbon Hyderabad, Telangan (Vizag) a-500 Limited, Rain Centre,34, Srinagar Colony, 073 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER .. RESPOND ENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated: 31-12-2021 in lA. No. O1 of 2021 in WP. No. 36942 of 2021and dismiss the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN counser for Respondents No.1to3 ,.tjl[f REDDY, T55B53I Counsel for Respondents No.4 : W.P.No.36944 OF 2021 Between: Golkonda Hotels and Resorts Limited, Off 1O-1-124and125, Banjara Hills, fVasab Ta1k, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 004 Rep by its Authorized Representative, Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy S/o. S.Sambi Reddy Service Connection No. HDC-428 ...PETITIONER AND

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), R/o. 6- 1-50, Mint compound, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. I!"^_!,lperintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL.

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL. 4. M/s. Sree Rgyalaseema Green Eqergy Private Limited, ClO. Y.K. Bhadakal, Near Radio Station Court Colony, Torvi Road, Bijapur, Karnataka - 586i02 5. Mis. Trident Power Sygtems Limited, 8-2-68414116, Anand Banjara Lane, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling Charges and Energy Losses on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the year 2,002-03 ohwards vide Lr.No.SE/Op/HYDERABAD(cENTRALy D.No.935, dt. 02.ot.2o2o, Lr.No.SE/op/Hyd/SAo/AAo(HT)JAo(HT)/ D.No.50 49121-22, dt. 13.12.2rl21, and the consequentlal action of the 3 Respondent in including the lmpugned demands in the monthly CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November, 2021, as ar^bitrary, illegal, without jurrisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2002-03 onwards, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides :,-,- .. ;i.i.:, un-constitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(f Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3:not to take any coercive steps including that rif disconnection of power supply to the Petitioner's service connecticjn vide No. HDC-428, pursuant to the Lr.No. SE/Op/HYDERABAD(CENTRAL)/D.No .935, dt. 02.O7.2020, Lr.No.SElOptHydlSAO/AA0 (HT)JAO(HT)/D.No.5}4gt21-22, dt.13.12.2021, and CC bill of the petitioner for the month of November,2021. lA NO: 1OF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., 1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 063. Chairman and Managing Director (TSSPDCL), R/o.6- Represented by its. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Hyderabad (Central), TSSPDCL ... PETITION E R/RE S PON DE NTS AND teE-nd -ReStirtS -t im ited; OfF-'1O: 1 : 1 2{and1 Zs;-Banja ra -ffillS- - - Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana 5OO 004 Rep by its Authorized Representative, Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy S/o. S.Sambi Reddy Service Connection No. HDC-428 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 4. M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Private Limited, C/O. Y.K. Bhadakal, Near Radio Station Court Colony, Torvi Road, Bijapur, Karnataka - 586'102 5. M/s. Trident Power. Systems Limited, B-2-684t4116, Anand Banjara Lane, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034 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 vacate the interim orders dated 3111212021 in lA.No. 1 of 2021in W.P.No. 36944 of 2021and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN counser for Respondents No.1to3 ,r,tSi[fTS,|$|I REDDY, Counsel for Respondents No.4 &5 : W.P.No.37048 OF 2021 Between: lM/s fMeenakshi Smelter and Rollers (P) Ltd, Sy. No. 29614,5 and 6,210 to 2'13, IDA Bollaram, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana - 5O2 325 Rep. by its Director, Rakesh Kumar Bansal S/o. Om Prakash Bansal HT Service Connection No SGR-787 ...PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd, 6-1-50, tt/int Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and fVlanaging Direct 2 3 4 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, fSSPDCL. fi/ls. Rain Cll Carbon (Vizag) Limited, Rain Centre, 34, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 073 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the cir:cumstances stated in the--affida-vitJiled-therewith, the High Court-.rnay be-'. pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential WheelinglTransmission Charges and lnterest amounts thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioners from the 4th Respondent under the Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dt.04. 11.1gg4, purpoi-ted to be basing on the Tai'iff Ci'ders sf the APERC ,'oi'the years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 20-07-08 and 2008-09 to 2014-15 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/SGWAAO(HT)I JAO(F|T/D.No.3_52|2O21, dt: 30 11 ZOZI, and the consequential action of the 3rd Respondent in includinE the lmpugned demands in the CC bill of Pdtitionei'Toi the rR6h-th of-Novembet:2A21, aS-arbitrair, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for FY 2OO2- 03 to 2018-19, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, iii.ii::; violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 oF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps inbluding that of disconnection of power supply of Petitioner as the Schedule consumer of 4th Respondent, pursuant to Lr.No.SE/OP/ SGRJAAO(HT)/JAO(HT)/D.No .352t2021, dt. 30.1 1 .2021, and CC bill for the month of November, 2021. lA NO: 1 oF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd, 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Direct

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. ... PETI TIO N E RYRESPONDE NTS AND

1. M/s tVleenakshi Smelter and Rollers (P) Ltd, Sy. No. 29614,5 and 6,210 to 213, IDA Bollaram, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana - 5O2 " _ _ __ 3-25_Eep-bv its-Direclor,= BAke Service Connection No. SGR-787 t" B-qngqt lS-1o. -O- ry-r Prak-a9tr-Bans-at-H-T- - -- - ----- 2 M/s. Rain Cll Carbon (Yizag Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 ) Limited, Rri, c;:r:H ::il'r:':51[:- = 073 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS - 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 vacate the interim orders dated 31t12t2O21 in lA.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 37048 Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counselfor Respondents No.1to3 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for Respondents No.4 : W.P.No.37076 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Gayatri Bio organics Limited., B1, 1st Floor, o-3-1090, TSR Tower, Rajbhavan Bgrd, somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 082 Rep. by its whole Time Director, Mr. Venkata Rayudu Chintalapudi S/o. Ch. Veerabhadr-a Rao HT Service Connection No. SGR-632 AND 1 Southern Power Distribution company of relangana Ltd., 6-1-50, Ir/int compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its chairman and [Vlanaging Director ...PETITIONER The Superintending Engineer, operation circle, sangareddy, TSSpDCL. 2 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSpDCL. 4. [v/s. Rain cH carbon (Vizag-) Limited., Rain centre, 34, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 073 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levy"ing and demanding Diffei'entiai Wheeiing/Transmission Cha tges iirro lnteresl amounts thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th Respondent under the Power Wheeling and Purchase Agreement dt. 04. 11.1gg4, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the years 2OOZ-03, 2003-04, 2o04-o5, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 to 2014-15 vide Lr.No.SE/Op/MEDAI(D.No. 11712O, dt. 16:07.2020, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the APERC for Fy 2002-03 to 2018-19, provisiohs of EleCtricity Actl 20O3,-beSideS UhConStitutiohal, Viotated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 1g(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly set asiele-the sdm€. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of power supply of Petitioner as the Schedule consumer of 4th Respondent, pursuant to Lr. No. S E/ Op/tt/EDAI(D. N o.1 1 7 I 20, dt.1 6.07 .2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: 1 .. Southern Power Distribution Company_of lgl^aqgana Ltd., 6-1-50, [\/int ' Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, fSSPDCL. 3 Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy, TSSPDCL. .. PETITIONER/RESPONDE NTS AND

1. M/s. Gayatri Bio Organics Limited., 81, 1st Floor,6-3-1090, TSR Tower, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telan-gana - 500 082 Rep. by its Whole Time Director, Mr. Venkata Rayu_dq Chintalapudi S/o. Ch. Veerabhadra Rao HT Service Connection No. SGR-632 ... RESPONDENTS /PETITIONER

2. IVI/s. Rain cH carbon (Vizag) Limited., Rain centre,34, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 073 i ... RESPONDE NTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated 3111212021 in lA.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 37076 of 2021and dismiss the writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counselfor Respondents No.1to3 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, . SC FOR TSSPDCL Counselfor Respondents No.4 : W.P.No.37436 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Meenakshi Paper Mills Limited, Survey- No. 659, Satamrai, Gaganpahad, HvOeraOaO, Telangaha - 500 052 Rep. by its Qi19.c!o^r. Sushil Kumar Aganrrtal, S/o. M'ohanlalAgarwal, HT Service Connection No. RJN-683 ...PETITIONER AND

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Tela ttlint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana Chairman and lVanaging Director ngana Ltd and 3 others, 6-1-50, 500 063. Represented by its

2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Rajendranagar, Nanalnagar X Roads, Rethibowli, TSSPDCL.

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Rajendranagar, Nanalnagar X

4. tVl/s. Rain Clt Carbon (Vizag) Limited, Rain Centre, 34, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 073 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia p'raying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Differential Wheeling/Transmission Charges and lnterest amounts thereon on the energy consumed by the petitioner from the 4th Respondent under the tModified Power Wheeling and Puichase Agreement dt.04.11.1994, purported to be basing on the Tariff Orders of the APERC for the years 2OO2-03,2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07,2007-08 and 2008-09 to 2014-15 vide LrNo.SE/Op/RJNR/JAO/ HT/D.No.404 dt. 11.11.20?1, and the - co-nsequential action of the 3-rd Respord-ent in-including-the-knp-ugned demands in the CC bills of Petitioner for the month of November,2021; as arbitrary, illegal, without jur.isdiction and contrary to the Tariff Orders of the,APERC for FY 2002-03 to 2018-19, provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, besides unconstitutional, violated of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanceS stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tfre Higft Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercivelsteps including that of disconnection of power supply of Petitioner as the scheduled consumers of Respondent, pursuant to Lr.No.SE/Op/RJNR/JAO/HTiD.No.404 dt. 11.11.2021, and CC bill for the month of Novemb er, 2O21. lA NO: 1 AF 2022 Between:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of T l\,/int Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana Chairman and Managing Director : elangana Ltd and 3 others, 6-1-50, - 500 063. Represented by its 2 The Superintending Engineel Operation Circle, Rajendranagar, Nanalnagar X Roads, Rethibowli, TSSPDCL.

3. Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Rajendranagar, Nanalnagar X Roads, Rethibowli, TSSPDCL, AND 1 It//s. lMeenakshi Paper l\/ills Limited, Survey No. 659, Satamrai, Gaganpahad, Hyclerabad, Telangana - 500 052 Rep. by its Director, Sushil Kumar Aganval, S/o. lt/ohanlal Agarwal, HT Service Connection No. RJN-683 ... PETITION ER/RESPONDENTS

2. A//s. Rain Cll Carbon Hyderabad, Telangana ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER (Vizag) Limited, Rain Centre, 34, Srinagar Colony, - 500 073 RES PON DE NTS/RE SPONDE NTS 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 vacate the interim orders-dated 31-12.2021 in-lA-Ncr1 of 2021 in WP:No. 37436 of 2021and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN counser ror Respondents No.1to3 'S:"SIIfTSSBSAI REDDY, Counsel for Respondents No.4 : The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 'L, - cr. ..f{- t) HON'BLE SRI NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA COMMON ORDER: 1 2o2L The above batch of Writ Petitions was filed impugning the notices of clisconncc[ion demanding the differential wheeling charges, losse:; and interest thereon, on the cner€S/ consumed by tire petitioners from private generating companic)s, purport-ed to be basing on the tariff orders issued by the erstrvhite A P Electricity Re.luiz:rt.ory Conrmission (APERC) for tlre FY 2OO2-O3 onrn,ards, as illt:qal ancl zrrbitrary.

2. Thc cilsc ol petitioners is thaL wl-ret:ling agreements were entered into by various generating companies and the erstvvhile APSEB/AP TRANSCO / DISCOMs (Licensees) under whictr thc present issuc arises, providing for wheeling charges in kind, lo be paid by the gcnerating companies to the licensees. These agreements were entered into prior to the establ-ishment of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission fAPERC) under the provisions of the Blectriciff Reforms Act, 1998. Aften APERC is constituteci, it cietermineci the wheeiing charges ro be_ paid by the generating companies ;n cash and also in"kind for the losses applicable from FY 2OO2-2O03 onwards in OP ruo. S t0 of 2OO 1. Questioning the ord.er of APERC paised in OP No. 51O of 2OOl dated 24.3.2OO2 in fixirrg wheeting charges for FY 2OO2- \ ,l I I . t ,r '.' I ; I I I 2 o 03 aS contrary to the agreements entered into between the generating companies and APSEB/AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs on the ground that APERC lacl:ed jurisdiction to determine the wheeling charges contrary to the wheeling agreement, some of the generating companies and some consumers approached this court by filing civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1015 of 2OO2 and batch and also writ Petitions. The Division Bench o[ this court by order dated 18.04.2003 set aside the order of the APERC passed in oP No. 5lc of 2001 dated 24.O3.2OO2 by holding rhar APERC lacks jrrrisdiction to fix the wheeling charges under the provisions of the 1998 Act besides declaring that the rights of the parties under the concluded contracts cannot be altered and further the charges fixed were held to be irrational and exorbitant-

2.L.Aggrievedthereby,APTRANSCOfiledCivilAppeal No. 4569 of 2OO3 and batch before the Hon'ble Supreme Court' pending Appeals, APERC also determined the wheeling charges for 2oo3 onwards, which orders were challenged by some of the generating companies and consumers by frling Appeals before AFTEL which allowed the Appeals by setting aside the order of APERC based on the order passed by this Court as against which Civil Appeal No. 7O2g of 2OO8 and batch were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By its judgment dated 29-LL.2}tg_, . --+-' .:: . J t- the Hon'ble supreme court allowed all the Appeals and set aside the judgment of Division Bench of this court and the order passed by ApfEL, by restoring thc order passed by APERC.

2.2. Fursuant to the judgmc.t of the Hon,ble Supreme court, impugned notices w,ere issued to petitioners, demancling differential transmission/wheeling charges, loss and interest t charges thereon from consumers. In that view, of the matter, the presenl writ Petitions camc to be filed on ttrc ground that there is no privity of contract betr,vcen pctitioners ancl rcspondents flor charging the differcntia[ u,hccling crrarges, transmission charges and losses from petitioners, rvho are consumers of the generators and also that the generators have agreements with re spondent-licensees, there[ore, any diffe rential wheeling charges, transmission charges, losses are only to be collected from thc generators and not from petitioners.

2.3. In the meanwhile, A.p. Reorganisation Act came into force whereby the composite State of Andhra pradesh was divided into state of Telangana and state of Andhra pradesh. The present impugned notices are issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court against the consumers- instead o[ generators who had agreement with respondents. [t is further stated rhat Ap rRANSco and DISCoMs in Andhra I T' 4 o n t I I Pradesh have takeu a view that differential wheeling charges are to be recovered from gencrating companies and not from Consumers. Therefore, petitioners contend that demand notices issued by Telangana DISCOM to the consum:rs were illegal. It is also contended that licensges in the State of Andhra Pradesh have recovered the differential wheeling charges, transmission losses from generating companies whereas Telangana DISCOMs are demanding the same from consumers and therefore contend that Lhere is double recovely, both from the consumers and also generating companics. Thel' contend that they are not liable to pay any amount/s towards differential wheeling charges; Iosses, etcetera to respondents. It is further contended t]rat some writ petitions, on similar lincs, wcre filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and some of the parties moved the Hon'ble supreme court for transfer of all the cases which are pending on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to be transferred to Hon'ble High Court of Telangana so that there would be no conflicting views in the matter. :

2.4. Learned Counsel have drawn the attention of the Hon'lcle Court to the definition of open access under Section 2 (471 which reads that "opbn crccess means the non- discriminatory prouision for tlrc use of transmissfon lines or distrtbution sgstem or associated. facilities with such lines or ) sAstem by anA licensee or consurter or person engaged in qeneration in accordance with re.gulations specified by the appropriate Com.mtssion". Section 2 (74ll "Transmit means conueaance of electricity bg means of transntission lines and the expression "transmission" shall be construed accordinglyf'. Section 2 (76) "utheeling means the operation whereby the I distribution system and associated facilities of a trartsmission licensee or distributiort licensee, cLS the case may be, are used bg another person for the conueAance of electdcity on paAment of charges t<t be detennined under Section 6Z'. Thc Learned counsels also placed reliance on scction a2 Ql of the Act which rcads that "tlte state commission shall introduce open access in such phases and subject to such conditions (including the cross subsidies and other operational constrainlsi as may be specified_ uithin one Aear of the appointed clate bg it and in specifying the extent of open access in successiue phases and in d"etermining the charges for utheeling, it shall haue due regard to all releuant factors including such cross subsidies and other operational constraints".

2.5, ,It is also brought to the notice of this Court regarding relevant clanlses of wheeling and purchase agreement between APSEB and power generators, more specifically clauses

1.12,2-5,2-4,7.1 and 8.1 which read as under. , 12" \ I, v t . I lr::l:.:: .i.ffi*::.. 6 c o I I t l.l2 - onet wheeled energy : utheeling energg less applicable wheeling charges". 2.5 - "wheeling schedule uill be on the percentage bo.sed on percentage of deliuered energA, to be wheeled. t<t each of the scheduled consunters, onlg the net wheeled energg will be deliuered to each of the consumef'- 2.4 - "as a compensation for the'prouis;ion of wheeling seruices, the board. shalt be entitled. to deduct from deliuered. erlergA as a wheeling charge, in kind, which charges shatl be at 2 oi". 7.1 - "In calculating a scheduled consumer bill, the allocated energg to such scheduled consutne1 redue.d bg the applicable wheeling charges and such aLlowed capacity shall he first deducted from the meter reading of energg artd mascintum dentqrrd for uthiclt the company shall bill such scheduled consutner and the balance of the ntetered energg and the maximum demand shall be deemed to be the power supptied bg the AP TRAIT{SCO to such sched.uled cctlsumer as per AP TRANSCO tariff conditions applicablefrom time to tiine.'. 8.1 - (iiil for rnaking all pagnrcrtts on accourtt of taxes, cesses, duties or levies, imposed by ang Gouernment or competent statutory authoritg on the land, equipmen| material or work-s of the project or'on the energg generated or corlsumed by the prolect or the companA or on the income or assefs of the contpang".

2.6. Learned Counsel further drawn the attention of the Court to relevant portion of the order passed by A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P. No. 510 of 2OOl dated 24.3.2OO2 with regard to Clause 8.27,8.31 and 9.14 which read as under. a.27 - "the wheeling clwrges shautd be calculated for uheeltng tlrc contracted. energA namelg th.e number of units. The project deuelopers/ generating companies aaatting seruices stnuld pag reali,stic rcst of such services". A37 - "the proiect deueloper uho wisles to auail the wheeling sVviqs wtll contract with the DISCOM in whose area of supplg the energg to be wheeled. is consunted. and. pag the charges to such DISCOM. There witl be - . .:, \. 7 no arrangement betueen such project deuelopers and AP IRAIVSCO or otlrcr DISCOM. It witt be for DISCOMs and AP fRA/VSCO to ltaue arra.ngement betuteen the.mselues i4,regard to the use of the sgstem. There will therefore be no apporlionment of utheeling charges as such betuteen AP TRA,IVSCO and DISCOM as suggested by tlrc applicarfis". 9.74 - "the wheeling charges o,re applicable untfunnlg to all project deuelopers, the-network, balancing, ancillary charges will be recouered in cash and losses in kind.

2.7. Learned Counsel also contend that a conjoint reading o[ a[[ these clauses with the definitions as envisaged in the Act demonstrate that rn,hccling scrvices trverc availcd by the power generators and not by petitioners who are consumers and the liability, if any, to pay the wheeling and transmissiort charges is of the generators/project developers and not petitioners who are admittedly consumers. Ii is further contended that as there is no privity of contract between petitioners and respondents and as there is no conti-actual relationship with Respondents for the purpose of wheeling from generators, respondenis were totally misguided in issuing the impugned demand notices. It is further submitted that demands raised are time barred, therefore, respondents cannot recover the anr+ounts demanded,

3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy contends that prior to Electricity Regulatory Commission coming into existence, the erstwhile _.*, i .r'i \/ i* . ,' :,,, ....:.rl-.i.1 ,.'.i.,t-I.::ii . .,i- .;:|il'i...: . ..;,..t . ' t t {{ 8 o APSEB/AP TRANSCO entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Power Purchase and Wheeling Agreement (PPWA) with thc captive generators and private generators to sell t power to the captive/schecluled consumers- and in return, wheeling losses in kind (percentage) were adjusted in the monthty HT C.C. bills of the scheduled consumers as per the provisions of MOU/PPWA entered into between the generators and APSEB/AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs from the energr wheeled. There was no te',.y of wheeling/ transmission charges in cash during the said period prior Lo 2002-2003. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission was formed in view of A.P.Electricity Reforms Act, 1998. Thereafter, AP TRANSCO/D.ISCOMs have filed Application in O.P.No. 51O of 2OAl for levy of wheeling losses in kind and wtreeling and transmission charges in cash. The Electricity Regulatory Commission, on the Application of DISCOMs uide O.P.No. 510 of 2OO1 allowed the same by order dated 24.O3.2OO2 permitting levy of wheeling charges in kind and also wheeling/transmission charges in cash in the tariff order from the FY 2OO2-O3 onwards.

3.1. It is submittedl generators having entered into agreement with AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs should submit the quantum of energr allocated to each scheduled consumer of the rynerator/shareholder of APGPCL for each month to tbg.. .^-."1-' ., -- \/ I t ..: : , ,,.:, ]:,.i .,\: 9 DISCOMs as per the jurisdiction/location. The charges in kind wcre adjusted towards wheeling losses from the delivered energ, and the consLrmers were issucd with C.C. bills.for the remaining consumption as per the order of APERC. Said methodolos/ was followed from FY 2OO2-O3 onwards till date. The order in OP No. 5lO of 2O0l dated24.O3.2OO2 was set aside by this Court in the batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed. Thereafter, similar order of APERC flrom FY 2003 onwards \ ras questioned before AffEL u.,hich by its Order dated 08.05.2008 sct aside the order ol APERC on the lines of thc judgment rendered by this CottrL against which S.L.Ps. were f-tled uid.e Civil Appeal Nos. 4569 of 2003 and batch and Civil Appeal Nos. 7029-7062. of 2OO8 and batch. On 29-1L.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the said Special Leave Petitions by setting aside the order of this Court and the order of APTEL by holding that the State Electricity Regulatory Commisslon is ,competent to determine the wheeling charges, transmission charges and also grid support charges. Accordingly, Respondents issued demand notices requesting payment of diftbrential wheeling transmission charg.es from,.-all- tha capLive, scheduled - consurners and third 3-2. .[t-is fu.rther conte,nded by the learned Standing Gounsel that difference \ of wheeling/transmission charges, /i --. .--,. ,l I I.+ .. ., ^,,.,E : - ,. :, . ;, t t I ! { l0 o o wheeling losses, transmission losses in kind was arrived/calculated as furnished below. a. The shortfall/excess '"vheeling losses and transmission losses in kind (units) are arrived at considering the difference of wheeling losses and transmission losses in kind as per IIRC order and as per MOU/PPWA. b. The shortfall/excess wheeling losses amount is arrived by multiplying the shortfall/excess units u,ith enerry.charges rate per unit in the respective month and year tariff orders. c. The applicable wheeling charges and transmission charges in cash are arrived by multiplying the gross enerry allocated by the generators to the HT scheduled consumers with rvheeling charges and transmission charges rate per unit/KVA/KW approved by ERC. Same is illustrarecl as under. A B Gross units allocated (in units) 100000 % of Wheeling l,osses in kind as per MOU/ PPWA 15 o/o C % of Wheeling l,osses in kind as per Tariff Order D Wheeling Losses in kind as per MOU/PPWA (10OOOO.l5/ 10O) (a.b) (in units) F E- -Wheeting l,osses in kind to bC collected as per Tariff order (as per Supreme Court Order (lOOOOO.28 .41 LOOI (a"c| (in units) Shortfall Wheeling losses in kind collected (284OO- i5000) (e-d) (in units) The difference amoL,.nt to be collected towards Wheeling losses between MOU/PPWA rates and tariff order rates at the applicable enerry charges rate per unit (134O0*3.71 per unit) (f*3.71) (in Rs.) G

28.40 o/o 15000 28400 13400 497 L4 I I H Wheeling Charges in cash @ Rs.O.SO/per unit of Gross eners/ wheeled (100OOO units * 0.5O/I(WHI (a*0.50) (in Rs.) Total Difference of Wheeling. Charges to be collected (g+h) (in Rs.) I 50000 997 14 t q 11

3.3. It is further contended,that after Electriciqr Act, 2003 Came into force, the licensing reqrrirement for generation ,w,as removed and introducecl Open Access under Section 42- All the permissions granted under the repeated Act of 19lo and 1948 are deemed. to be considered as deemed approved under Section 42 of the said Act and henceforth, the wheeling services are provided by utility under Section 42. Learned Standing counsel further submits that section 42 (4) mandates that any consllmer availing open access shall pay additional surcharge in addition to the wheeling charges. Ttrese charges are intended to compensate the distribution licensee for availing the wheeling service. tt is stated that scheduled consllmers are.integral part I of the wheeting agreements entered into by the generators with t the DISCOMs and the generators always included an apnexed list of scheduled consumers thereby making the scheduled consumers an integral par[ of tlre agree.rltpn-t and liab[e for the associated charges. Therefore, there was no illegality or irregularity in issuing the demand notices. 3-4. It is arsued that wheeling losses in kind even prior to p;ft;,e, passing the-Award-wer,e -consistently- adjusted in the electrici-ty bills of consumers based on wheeling schedules submitted by the generators: Therefore, 'the operational practice .&lqt" consumers' direct involvement in the wheeling { I i I . ...l+ili:'. :;i:li.rr;,.. t2 o ,a) arrangement. It is further important to note that APERC in its order dated 24.3.2OO2 in O.P. No. 510 of 2OOl at Clause 8.19 clearly stated that there is no need for tripartite or multipartite agreements involving AP TRAI{SCO/DISCOMs and each wheeled consumer. It further Stated that a single agrecment betwecn the generator and DISCOM is sufficient which reflects the transmission and distributiori SyStemS, hence the conterrtion Of the petitioners that there is no privity o[ contract cannot stand and falls flar. tt is further contended that where APGPCL is the generator o[ some of the coflS.lln€rs/writ petitioncrs, the privity of contract cannot be a ground for the reason that all the scheduled consumers of APGPCL for which it has supplied the power are its shareholders and therefore the agreement by the company is binding on its shareholders. Therefore, the contention that there is no privity of contract even otherwise cannot stand. It is stated that APERC determined the tariff by including wheeling/transmission charges, losses, etcetera. These charges are to be recovered by the DISCOMs from the consumers located in their jurisdiction. It is further stated that in T?imex Interno;tiono,l 3.5. FZE Linited v. Vedanta Alluminium Litnitedl and Brogden '1zoro; 3 scc 1 t t t t3 u. Metropolitan Railuag Co.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a binding contract may arise from the conduct of the parties. In the case on harnd, petitioners/consumers have t consistently alloned RespondentsiDISCOMs to adjust the wheeled ener5/ in their elecLricity bills in accordance with the methodologr prescribed in the regulatory framework. This conduct amounts to implied acceptance and performance of contractual obligations.

3.6. [n OMC Limited u. Discovery Enterprises Put. Limited3 and Cox & I{ings Ltd a. SAP India Pvt Limited+, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that even non-signatories may be bound by the contractual terms if they derive benefit or participate in the performance of the contract. In Motital Padanngtat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd a. State of tIF, a party who induces reliance through its conduct cannot subsequently deny the legal consequences e[ such conduct,., . - 3.7. As regards the contention of petitioners that the demands raised by DISCOM are time barred, it is stated that the orders of APERC in OP No. 510 of 2OOL dated 24.O3.2OO2 waslstlbiect matter of Special ,Lea.ve Petitis*s-be{ore the Hsnlcle Supreme Court and ,onl5r on 29 ,L l.2}l9 , the Ftron:ble Apex Court 'gazZ'12 App Cas 666 3 1zozz19 scc s96 o 2023INSC los1 i 1rsze1 2 scc 4o9 I / t d ,*'i$$, ,rla=jxl .,.l:.r,*j. , .a.iafi'j,: " .:1.. ... .::t+.tL- -:i l.:' t t l4 ('-) i /\ affirmed the order of Electricity Regulatory Commission and notices were issued to consumers and generators immediately thereafter. Therefore, said notices can never be said to be time barred under Section 56 (2t r:f the 2003 Act. The contention o[ petitioners that liability cannot be fastened on both scheduled consumers and generator sirnultaneously is not correct. Notices were issued to petitioners which are impugned in the present Writ Petitions and in view of challenge of notices on the ground of absence of privity of contract, as a precautionary measure and to safeguard DISCOMs'revenrfe, notices were issued to the generators which are also disputed.

3.8. Learned Standing Counsel while drawing attention of the Court to Section 42 (21and (4) of the Act and the order of APERC, contends that there is no illegaliry or irregularity in the demand notices issued to consumers. He filed the following flowchart showing the calculation of differential wheeling charges apart from a diagram, as below, was also filed showing the charges that were being collected. from the consumers in the Current Consumption Charges. 1 ) .. t. .: -(- t f r I l ! i i t: i: i :l :i 15 Consunte. preaniSes 2000c0 per WA 610$ Uiht allodatec by . Generator looo00 unitt losses in % klnd lj'per wA 1596 losses in 'r..Jh€dtnq iilnd as per ERC 28.40r'o l{heeling Rs: Ii ,t losses in uaitj X l5o/o) x Wheeling charg€s ;n cash - Rs. 50,000 (1,0o.00o x o.5i l,let wheeled G€nerator altocation - 15000) tlet units.to be biiled by Dls.coM . '.1iS_OBO units (200ooo - 85ooo) .unlt Rs, Net units to towards Generator ailocatlor! 7i600 (rooooo - Net u:iiE tc be olSCOlrt 128400 unlts (zooooc - 71500) Charges.rate fis. l.7tl .,i :r:. i :* i;i ^.- i^d.;tr;n.:i;'i*a,ilii-i { t /; .t t t t6 r--) o CEN'TRAL POWE.II DISTRIBUTION COMPy'.I{Y OF A.T'. LIMITED l{T C.C. Bltl for lho rnon(1 of Fotrurry toq: DilQA ollortzoo! t6fol/t008 IOlt I Rq[067 fi ., R TOtY FTLI,IE LID PHiBS-T IT rDA .JEED$EILA HY0EiAEiD - E00 au5 tlnlal{,, on clr trelors Ct r *nraul Pi(l lt(ttM ll'l Sr?dlrllUlird;1r'[(Vl fraud\t{qe (l(t4 C.tsp! ctlop13qas trt/01/200 Rodng (ln RoodtnsBl tlllsla.r(ir Multl${ng f:oou lbtal Conatrythn trtonthly hlioknrm Mnla Csrannotiqn t(tq,H 6iii'.6:i . 66t[.1 ?98.2? a00.00 E6??? &rnard Clorger tlorre.rl Ratc 0etnord Oraqes Senal Rote Brrgy CtrargcsBatc tAll Ur{t{ EEctncJ Drrg frde Cotau Orarsar nsta tlF Chrg,rt Rotc tlilrr gtrsr - Il &"{91&*l'lXil' 1- ad rrtFf B{. R& 8.. xuAH rlioltr ?ltt.06 r0e.61 900.00 61t06 Colony l?0 350

6.00 RI Rr ?r Fr ?s Ps l(v[ o.o0? !,0s,00 17f.( E' Ior ,ctt ?F o.tf, [AFB??t 1.1!z' ?0 t2.7t @+c to'tL? tffA kv^ KUJH KWH KtgH KWH paKWH ' SuLToltl OrstoflcrCha€cs Lorr Ps{er Frdar Sorctg:o Rl$.trAlI Scnlrargc I{YDEL tlKtfiH $mnarge WINO tn14 F{rncnr Clr'rst5 ItUcrcrt <ffi gDt P6}rJ tnt€rcst HrE(I{€ct Elhrrncc Vdt4e Sur.\yge orlE ffE$Jrc cx6 rt, Gi{8t{ 6.1'.Ii Et{!l OL/Q$A4 ?O f:{f,&l . 25i6 Rebrrte r\pp0c$tc kEcntir&ror$t Trtnctcrrnct O0rirAt4A4 t'let Prlpblo

0.3r{

13650.s0 ?]4.454-9A rc741r2.oO L84.E.7Z 3A?s.{:l

151120.07 TS0,00. rrtE .rS {,(6?r?.rrz {1??50.8? : I I ttl&flt{ftur + cB/sr b,r..r. .lt6.ZI. i.fi{rtt,Strtilr.' tnt' srgoriLso,Ilq. ,ftrgfr,r, IhII firlltl+ 17

3.9. [t is contended that there is an agreement between generators and its scheduled consumers/petitioners for supply of energr wherein the energr generated would be transmitted to its scheduled coltsumers as per the said agreement. Said agreement is not made public and the said agreement has not seen the light of the day. If the said agreement is produced before this Court, it would come to light that consumers are liable to pay wheeling charges and in turn the differential whceling charge s as per the ordcr of APDRC also. By not making the said agrce ment public and not disclosing thc contents of the agreement, the gencrators and petitioners are playing hidg and seek keeping the respondents and this Court in dark- tt is contended that petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and not disclosed the factual aspects and the contents of the agreement inter se the generators and the . ,,,petitioners. On this ground also, the Writ Petitions arE iiabL-e_,to -. be dismissed.

3.10. It is further contend.ed that several questions of fact and technical issues regarding calculations have been --raised by petitioners in t-he l.is and this Corlrt trnder--Artide-226- ^ of Constitution of India, cannot go into' the s4id disptrted -questions'of faet and the technieal issues' to deeide the above writ petitions. Fetitioners can always approach the Electricity f t I i-,1 ., . . . : ..., .', r :.:i .',' .t. .;- " .. J,,-.:-!:r:i,'11-! - -..?j.rii.i:..._!a* I I t 18 r') Regulatory Commission seeking clarity on the order passed by it. Therefore, this Court cannot be asked to delve into the said factual issues and technical issues which can be decided by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. In the absence of making the agreements available for perusal of this Court, it is not possible for the Court to deive into the said issues. Therefore, there is no itlegality in fastening the liability on the consumers by issuing the impugned proceedings. No grounds are made out for interflerence of this Court.

4. Petitioners replied to the arguments of learned Standing Counsel stating that the illustration of C.C. bill filed along with the counter affidavit would only show that net eners/ has been supplied to consumers after deducting wheeling loss percentage, therefore, the consumers have never undertaken to compensate loss of energr due to wheeling and therefore, it was the generators who were bearing the wheeling losses in kind earlier and at this juncture who are bearing the difference of wheeling losses in kind and cash after the order of E.R-C.

5. This Court considered all the submission made by the respective Counsel. The main ground urged by learned counsel for petitioners regarding privity of contract, APERC in the order passed in OP No. 510 of 2OOL had ce ttegorically held ' . that there is no need for tripartite or multipartite agreements '\/ l9 involving AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs and each wheeled consumer' More over, the judgments relied on by respondent in T'ri'rnex International FZE Ltd, whcrein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held tt-rat acceptance o[ contractual terms may be either express or implied and binding contract may arise from the conduct of theparties.lnONGCLtd2022(g)SCC596'theHon'bleApex court reaffirmed that even non-signatories may be bound by contrzrcttraltermsiftheyhavederivedbenefitorparticipatein performance of Lhe contract' [n viern" of the above' petitioners' Contentionthatthereisnoprivityofcontractbetuleenthemand theDlsCoM,hencetrred'emandrr'oticesshallbesetaside,is rejected.Thecontentionthatd.ernandnoticesaretime-barred underSections6(2|oftheActhasnolegstostandastheorder ofAPERChasbeenupheldbytheHon,bleSupremeCourtonly on2g.ll.20lgandthed.emandrroticeswereissuedin2000and 2,Ogl. :IrI any event, the Hon'ble Rahtnoltrtllah,s cotse interpreted section 56(2) of the Act' Hence Court thisCorrrthotdsthatd'emandnoticesarenotbarredby limitation. - Further; petitioners have not co-mq to the Court -6: with clean n-ands s rthey have . suppressed ttre agreerlrent behMeen them and the generators which has not seen the light of the day. Even when this couit asked learned counsel for t l i .{ 20 o o I petitioners to produce the copy of the agreement, they have not done so far. Petitioners have not filed any rejoinders rebutting the contents o[ counter affidavit that petitioners were bcing billed the wheeling charges all these years, hence the difference of the wheeling charges as acljudicated by the APBRC shall also be paid by petitioners only

7. Petitioners have raised several questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Fol all the above reasons, the Writ Petitions fail and are accordingi'.. Cismissed. No costs. I

8. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed SD/.MOH D. ISMAIL PUTY REG ISTRAR //TRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN' Advocate' oPucI One CC to M/S.CKR ASSOCIATES' Advocate' [OPUCI One CC to SRI N'SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL' [OPUC] Two CD CoPies :

1. 2 3 4 BSK GJP \? ./ I I HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 \ f-L i,.. t-. ; ') 17 t:t ?.i5 ,\, <l ', * ,:t1 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 13281, 13359 OF 2020, 34,344, 34405, 35262,35266; 35269, 35269, 35972, 35873, 36929, 36942, 36944, 37049, 37076, 37436 0F 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS G ;d,n td#