The High Court · 2025

1 M/s. Vestro Solvents Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director Sri Nandigala Rama Subba Reddy S/o. N. Malta Reddy Ramanthapur Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Ramanthapur Medak District.

2. Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana, First Floor 33111 KV Substation, Beside Hyderabad Boat Club Lumbini Park, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article bZA ot m. Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records and to quash the orders dated 30.08.2024 in Appeal No. 22 of 2024-25, as arbitrary, illegal unjust and contrary to the taw and facts of the case and to quash the same. .r,'IANO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the orders of the 2nd respondent in Appeal No. 22 of 2024-25 dated 30.08.2024. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TELANGANA TRANSCO) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGF,SH BHEEMAPAKA qrRIT PETITION No.34 tao oF 2024 ORDER:- i. This Writ Petition is hled seeking an order or direction in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the orders dated 30.Og.2024 in Appeal No.22 of 2024'25 passed by the !"a respondent, as iilegal and unjust.

2. Heard Sri N.Sreedhdar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. perused the materiall available on record including the grounds raised in the Writ / petition.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.l herein has been provided with a LT Service Connection bearing SC.No.lO 1 1800378 under LT Category-Ill for utilizing power for the purpose of processing or preserving the goods for sale. On

31.1O.2022, the said service connection was inspected by Assistant Divisional Engineer, Detection of Pilferage of trnergr Wing (petitioner No.5 herein) and found that there was no production activit5r or manufacturing process and the power supply is being used for construction works of office/shed and storage of solvents like liquids of Methanol, Acids etc. and during the course of inspection, the representative of tlte l"t respondent informed that the power supply was being used for MS Storage tanks welding 2 works from November, 2020; Storage of tarks loaded and unloaded started from November 2027 and these r.anks were used for storage of solvents only. He also submitted -hat there is no ! manufacturing or production of any type of solverrts or materials. As the power supply is being used for the purpose cf storage of oils or solvents, the service has to be billed under LT-ll category as per Clause 1.4 of Tariff orders. Hence a back billing notice dated

31.10.2022 was issued to the 1"t respondent for a sum of Rs.5,20,796 for chalge of service connection fron LT-III to LT-II from 06.10.2O2O to 04.11.2022. On 17.11.2022, the Divisional Engineer, Operation, has issued a Final Assessment order dated 17 .11.2022 conlirming the Provisional Assessme -rt notice dated

31.10.2022. The l"t respondent has paid 5O% of the Provisional Assessment notice i.e., Rs.2,60,398 on 25.O1.2023 and has preferred an Appeal to the Superintending Engineer, operation, Medak (petitioner No.1) vide letter dated O5.O1.2O24 and the l"t petitioner has withdrawn the total back billing amount. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the back billing amount in ttre CC bills and surcharge, the lst respondent has approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for refund of differer: tial billing and additional charges. While the matter stood thus, again on O5.O7 .2024 , the service connection of the lst respondent was inspected by the 1st petitioner and during the course of his inspection, petitioner No. 1 found that there arr: three service \ \ J connections issued in the names of M/s.Vestro Solvents (p) Ltd., M/s.Vestro Containers (P) Ltd and M/s.Vestro Labs (p) Ltd and for all the three service connections, there is only one single entry to the premises. Subsequently, the Consumer Grievance Redrcssal Forum passed final orders dated 3O.OT .2024 dismissing the complaint of the l st respondent on merits and directed the 1 .r petitioner to follow the schedule of Retail supply tariff terms and conditions as per the Tariff order issued by the TSERC for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24 and to continue the service connection of respondent No. 1 under LT-ll category only. The consumer forum also held that the withdrawal of the back billing amount of Rs.5,20,7961- by the Superintending Engineer is incorrect. It further directed the petitioners to club both the LT service connections .into one single service connection as per Clause 3.5.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Pursuant to the said orders, the Assistant Divisional Engineer has issued notice dated 17.Oa.2O24 for clubbing two LT service connections of the l"t respondent into single service connection. Aggrieved by the orders of the Consumer Forum, the 1st respondent has filed an Appeal before the 2nd respondent vide Appeal No.22 of 2024-25 and the 2"d respondent passed orders dated 30.O8.2024 allowing the appeal by setting the initial provisional assessment notice dated 31.10.2022 and also the notice dated 17.08.2024 issued for clubbing the LT service connection. Aggrieved byle orders oI the 2'd respo -u ". i '.r,e petitioners approached this Court and t-rled the present Writ Petition.

4. lrarned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2"d respondent failed to take note of the submissi:ns made by the representative of the I't respondent that there is -ro production or manufacturing activiry in the said premises. 11. also contended that the 2"d respondent failed to consider the fa,:t that the back billing notice was issued for wrong utilization of prwer supply and also erred in setting aside the clubbing notice drted 17.08.2024 and therelorc prayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal Nt.22 of 2024-25 dated 30.08.2O24.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 hled his counter contending that the respondent No. I had l>een carrying on thc activily of processing and preserving the goods; for sale and as such, LT-lll Category is correct. But the peti,ioners, without considering the same, ordered for back billing and has not followed the relevant Clause in General Terms ard Conditions of Suppty while changing the category of subject se:vice connection and therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have released the subject Service Connection in LT-III category. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st respondent has pairl SOyo amount \t., \ ,l 5 wr 34100 2024 towards back billing amount. Further, as per the hnal assessment order dated O5.O1.2O24, the petitioner No.1 came to a conclusion that the l st respondent utilized the power supply for preserving storage and automated filling of highly inflammable solvents for which the service comes under LT-CAT-III as per Tariff order Clause 1 . 10 and hence withdrawn the back billing case on SC.No. 10118OO378 and directed to continue the billing under LT_ III category. He also stated that the 50% back billing amount paid by the respondent No. t herein will get adjusted in the next month CC biII.

7. Further, it is pertinent to state that as per Clause 3.4.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, when a consumer has been classified under a particular category and is billed accordingly and it is subsequently found that the classihcation is not correct, the consumer will be informed through a notice of the proposed reclassification, duly giving him an opportunit5r to file any objection within a period of 15 days. The company, after due consideration of the consumer's reply, if any, may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills if necessary even with retrospective effect. The assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such reclassihcation is needed, however, the period during which such reclassification is needed cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. ./ / t) Wp 34180-2024 --

8. But in the instant case, the 5fr petitioner has straightaway issued the subject back billing nolice by mentioning the back billing amount for the relevant period, which is against the \l prescribed procedure of Clause 3.4.1 of the GerLeral Terms and Conditions of Supply. Hence, considering all these aspects, the 2nd respondent passed orders dated 3O.Oa.2O24 in ,\ppeal No.22 of 2024-25 setting aside the notices dated 31.1O.2O22 and 17 .O8.2O24 issued by the sth petitioner and al;o directing the petitioners herein to refund the excess amount cc,llected from the respondent No.1 till date by way of adjustment in f,rture bills of the respondent No.1 service connection within a peric,d of one month from the date of Award. However, it also madr: clear that the Award does not preclude the petitioners herein from either issuing notice for change of category or clubbing of servic,: connections of the respondent No.1 herein by undertaking fresh inspection of the premises of the respondent No. I herein by following the Clauses of General Terms and Conditions of Supply or Tariff C)rders issued by Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission.

9. This Court do not hnd any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2"d respondent as .t deems Iit and proper in all respects. Hence, the Writ petition is ,levoid of merits ald substance and is liable to be dismissed. 7

10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed without costs. 11 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC $I,, FICER I toPUCl

1. One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy (SC for TELANGANA TRANSCO) z. bne Ci to Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies To, TJ PVL t_ HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 . ,,a'' '\.. -)'r, ORDER I $2 liEi',M WP.No.34180 of 2024 * '-,] t/- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS