The High Court · 2025

1 Mis. Sri Ramanjaneya Rice lndustries, Rep by its Proprietor Sri. Cheruku Yadaiah S/o. Muthyalu, Sy. No. 645, Amangal, Madgul Road, Rangareddy - 509321. 2 Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Of TSSPDCL, (Greater Hyderabad Area) Door No. 8-3-'167/E/l, Central power training institute (CPTI) premises, TSSPDCL, GTS colony, Vengal Rao Nagar, Erragada, Hyderabad - 500045. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o( 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records and to quash the orders in CG. No. 30912023-241 Rajendranagar Circle dated 01 .05.2024 on the file of the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal unjust and contrary to the law and facts of the case and to quash the same. - IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Crud may be pleased to stay the operation of the final orders in CG. No. 30912):a3-241 Rajendranagar Circle dated 01 .O5.n24 on the file of the 2nd Respondenl. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TELANGANA TRANIiCO) Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI PASHAM MOHITH The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PE*TITI ON Nos.34 187 and 35404 of2O24 i COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they arc heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order

2. W.P.No.34187 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief ". . . .to issue a uit, order or direct@n more pdrticut trlg one tn the aatute of u,rit of cerloran bA catling for the records aid to quo^sh the orders in CG No.3O9/ 202324/ Rajendratragar Circle dated O1.05.2024 on the fi1e of tle 2"d respondenl a^s arbitrarg, illegaL, LoLJust aid coitrary to Lhe lau and.Ic:cts of the case and to quash the same. . . . " 3 W.P.No.35404 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief: "....to rssue an appropriate utrit, order or direction more particulorllJ one in the ndture of uit of Mantlamus i) d.clanng the actrns of the Respondents in rssuing H_T bills for the month of May 2023 October 2023 agatn-st the seruice connection if the Petitioners ice nLiII utde SC No.21O2O217S and therebg demanding thL Petitioaer to pdA att dnount to luie of INR 3,OO,OOO/ for tlte month_s oj Mag 2023 October 2O23 as illegal, arbitrary, uncon-stidtttondL apart from being i u-iolalion of the prouisions of DlecticitA Act, 2OO3 anl Retail Supplg Tariff drder for ttle FY 2023-2024 at(1 set estde the sane dnd. ii) Otrecting 1he Re{pondent authoities to refund an amount totaling to the tune of INR 4,S9,OOO/ irrclud.ing utth the interest peneltA orLd conpe\sation . .."

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are referred to as mentioned in W.P.No.34187 of 2024.

5. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. t has been provided with a service connecLion bearing SC.No.2lO2 02175 under LT-III Category [Industriai] in the name of M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Rice Industries with a contracted load of 99 Hp, and a- 2 thc contr.rctcd load was enhanced from 99 Hp r r,r 1O() Hp in the month of Jurte 2023. In the month of May 2O23. respondent No.1 has excecded the contracted load lrom 99 Hp to I(),1.9 lHp, hence Development chargcs case tvas booked for it n amount of Rs. 15,620/- for regularization of thc load, and resl i.rndent No_ t has paid the said amount on 03_O6.2023. In the F)ner.1.r. Billing System (trBS) oncc the connccted load is entered as more rh tn I O0 Hp, the billing sh:rll aul_omatically be donc under FIT (]irr.egory and the biiling is updated as per I{T Fl.ag. As respondent No. I has exceeded the c.ntracted load to 99 Hp ir-r the month of Ma1. .023, lhe sen,ice connection was automatically billed uncler I{T Catcilory. ,I,he EBS is progrzrmmcd to bill under the HT Category from t tr: month when the violation is detected aud in the present case fr om May,2023. Aggrieved by thc billing under HT Category, respo,rrlent No. I has filed a complaint before the 2"a responden[, ancl tht:2,d respondent vide order datecl Ot.OS.2024 in C.G.Nr,.ilo9/2 023_24_ RAJENDRANAGA R CIRCLE, has clirected the responr lents rherein to revise the bills from May-2O23 to October 2023 against S.C.No.2102 02 175 under LT-III category only instc: d of FIT_I tariff and refund/adjust the same along with simple intc-tst .rL go/o per annum as per Clause 2.49 (bl of Reguiation No.3 of 2C15 and also directed lo rcfund for an amount of Rs.2,360/_ whi<:lr .ivas collected from the consumer towards lesting charges within 21 davs, and if ..:.t i I I I 3 the complainant is aggrievecl by the said order, may avail remedies within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted that the I't respondent has [o make an appiication to the Accounts Officer to change the category to Category III Sub Category-8, as the 1"t respondent is utilizing the power supply for running a rice mill. But 1st respondent has not submitted any application for change of category, hence the billing was being done under for the period from May to September 2023 under HT Category as the 1't respondent has exceeded the contracted load of 1OO HP. It is submitted that the 2"d respondent erred in granting interest @ 9o/o per annum without looking into the provisions in the Electricity Act, 2OO3, the General Terms and Conditions of supply and the tariffs for the year 2023-24 , and also without considering the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, the same needs to be quashed.

6. A counter affidavit has been hled by respondent No.I denying the allegations made against it and stated that even though it has \ not exceeded 125 HP for LT-III industrial categories, it was charged wrongly under the HT Flag in spite of payment of charges and I t" requested the Divisional Engineer to remove the said categorization. It is further stated that any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer can prefer an appeal to the Appellate 1 Tribunal, but the petitioners have hled the pre ser.rt writ petition solely to circumvent the law of limitation.

6. respondent No.2 in In vieu. of the abovc facts ancl circumstances c f the case. this Corrrt is not inclincd to interfere u,ith thc orders ia r:d O1.05.2024 passed by c.G.lr o.3og/2 023 24_ RAJENDRANAGAR CIRCLE, and W.p.No.34l8t,of 2024 is accrrrdingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of \r'.p.No.34 lg7 of 2024, W.P.No.35404 of 2024.is allowed directing .he respondenrs therein to implernent the order dated .llt.Og.2024 in C. M. P. No.04 / 2024 -25 in C.G. No.30 g / 2023_24 _RA, JIiNDRANAGAR CIRCLE, only to the extent of paragraph No.7, :xcluding thc payment of compensation by the respondents thereirL. No order as to costs. As a seqtrel. the miscellaneous petitions pendingl, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SII/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASS.ISTANT REGIS .. SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 The Proprietor Srr. Cheruku Yadaiah S/o. Muthyalu, Ir4,s Sri Ramanjaneya Rice lndustnes, Sy No_. 645, Amangat, Madgul'Road llangareddy -'509321 Consumer Grievance Redressal Foium Of TSSPDCL. (Oreater Hyderabad {ryQ Dgor No. 8-3-167/E/1, Centrat power training ins.itrte {CpT[) premises, _c_TS co,]o1y, Vengal Rao Nagar, Erragada, Fydeiabad'- 500045. TSSP-D^CL, One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (SC for Titanca ia Transco) tOpUCl One CC to SRI PASHAIT/ MOHITH, Advdcate [OPUC:- Two CD Copies BN cGJ P HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 t COMMON ORDER WP.No.34187 & 35404 of 2024 T ltls S ( (r{' ( o I (J ?2 tlot,U t \ - sp^ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION NO. 34187 OF 2024 AND ALLOWING THIE WRIT PETITION NO.35404 OF 2024 WITHOUT COSTS