The High Court · 2025

,"n,TEl,Fr:ai?'ih,38"f8g?rlii"Bililril:"*"??H'l'i,.fi .,?: jti,.l 4' The Assistant Divisional Engineer, .Operqtion, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution compan"y Limitel- ieshricr, tlirir,prri] -Medchat Malkajgiri District AND ...APPE LLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

1. vidyuth ombudsmqq for the state of relangana,, t Floor, 33t11KV sub 2 station, Hyderabad Boats crub Lane, Lumuini Firk, riio'eiaoao Hli*ffi#,i#fr:$;i I$,!,ffi: ] n'i%i i ffi ,?,..s'{;I;oo rt., lA NO: 2 OF 2025 .RESPONDENTS i 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 grant interim stay of the operation of the Award of the first respondent dated 22.4.2019 in Appeal No. 38 of 2O18 pending disposat of W.A.No . of 2O2S counsel for the Appellant: sRl N. SREEDHAR REDDY ( sc FoR TGSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT No.1319 oF 2025 Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for the appellants. Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. JUDGMENT: (Per Honbte Justice Moushumi Bhatracharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated O1.O7.2O25 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18148 of

2. The appellants herein (Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited) filed W.P.No.18148 of .2019 seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for calling for the records and for quashing the Award dated 22.04.2019 ('Award') passed by the respondent No.l/Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana, in Appeal No.38 of 20 18 filed by the respondent No.2/consumer herein. The respondent No.2/consumer had filed W.P.No.18106 of 2025 seeking a direction to the appellants to implement the Award dated

22.04.2019. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned common order dated O1.O7.2025, dismissed W.P.No.18148 of 2019 filed by the appellants and disposed of W.P.No.18106 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.2/consumer by affirming the Award and directing the d1 2 appellants to implement the Award as expeditiously as possible, prefererbly within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned common order, relied upon the orders dated 08.02.2013 and r4.o3.2o13 passed by the learned single Judges of this court (as Their I-ordships then were) in w.p.No.3534 of 2ol3 and w.P.No.13545 of 2012, respectively, which involved similar facts. counsel further submits that although the ground of absence of prior notice beforc the re-categorization of the services of the respondent No.2 had been raised in the writ petition filed by the appellants, the learned single Judge erred in not granting liberty to the appellants to issue a fresh notice to the respondent No.2/consumer, so as to give them an opportunity to file objections against the re-classification to be considered by the appellant before taking steps for change of category of service.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/consumer submits that the controversy dates back 15 years and the appellants cannot now be permitted to issue a fresh notice to the respondent No.2/consumer. 3

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Jud.ge especially, paragraph 5 thereof indicates that the learned Single Judge has solely relied upon the two orders dated

08.02.2013 and L4.O3.2OL3 passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court (as Their Lordships then were) in W.P.No.3534 of 2013 and W.P.No.13545 of 20 12, respectively to reach a decision in the matter.

7. We have perused the order dated Oa.O2.2Ol3 passed in W.P.No.3534 of 2013. It is evident from the said order'that the facts therein were similar to the facts in the Writ Petition f,rled by the appellants/ writ petitioners.

8. In the present case, the appellants/writ petitioners had issued electricity bills to the respondent No.2/consumer under the 'HT- Temporar5r Supply' category. Prior to 20LO, the respondent No.2/consumer had been classified under the 'HT-II' category. The respondent No.2/consumer filed Appeal No.38 of 2018 before the respondent No.l/Vidyut Ombudsman. The Vidyut Ombudsman allowed the Appeal and set aside the Notices dated OI4.O4.2O12 issued by the appellants towards back-billing of the respondent /i/tJl : : '-!]":i+i.r:l + 4 Nlo.2/consumer and directed for adjustment of the amounts paid by the consumer i.e., Rs-3,44,842/- against service connection RRE 1528 and Rs.3,56,Ts6/- against the service connection RRE 1904 in the future bills of the two services. The appellants were also directed to revise the bills from 'HT-Temporar5r'category to .HT-I[, category till the date of effect of the Tariff order 2olz-1g from April, 2oL2. The appellants were hence constrained to file the Writ petition before the learned single Judge culminating in the impugned order dated 01.o7.2025.

9. It would be e'idcnt from the impugned order that the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants, thereby confirming the Award of the vidyut ombudsman. However, the learned Single Judge did not afford the apperlants/writ petitioners an opportunity to issue fresh bills under the changed category after notice to the respondent No.2/consumer.

10. Both the orders dated og.o2.2o13 and 14.03.2013 relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent No.2/consumer contain a requirement that the appellants (TGSSPDCL) shall issue notice to the consumer in the event of any change of category. since the learned Single Judge relied upon these two orders, the appellants/writ petitioners should also have been given liberty to issue a fresh notice 1 \ 5 to the respondent No.2/consumer before raising bills under the changed category. 1 1. We hence deem it fit to dispose of the Appeal by granting liberty to the appellants to issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2/consumer before raising bills under the changed category. The fresh notice shall be issued to the consumer within two weeks from today. Any steps taken by the appellants in revising the electricity charges of the respondent No.2/consumer shall be subject to the consumer being afforded an effective opportunity to respond to the fresh notice issued in that regard. L2. W.A.No.1319 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Superintending Engineer,, Opgqtrg!,^Telangana State Southern -timited (fCSeOCll, Habsiguda Circle, M Distribution Compiny Malkajgiri District Power edchal

2. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, Tel Distribution Company Limited TGSPDCL, Malkajgiri District anoana state southern Power HTabsiguda Circle, Medchal

3. The Divisional Engineer, Operation,'Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited TGSPDCL, Sainikpuri, Medchal Malkajgiri District

4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southem Power Distribution Company Limited TGSPDCL, Sainikpuri, Medchal Malkajgiri District

5. One CC to Sri Sreedhar Reddy ( SC for TSSPDCL) IOPUCI 6. One CC to Sri N. Praveen Kumar, Advocate TOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies W- TJ : +a*rr;t- Ie HIGH COURT DATED t2511112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1319 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS (r s \v