The High Court · 2025

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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the WRIT OF TVANDAIVUS declaring that the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in claiming the electricity bill amount of Rs. 19,56,7251 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven Only) (Figure in words and numerals is mismatching. Please check) through a Letter dated. 06-08-2022 in pursuance of the Notice vide Lr. ADE/OP/lsnapur/F.No. Hf lD.No.122-23, dt.26- 07 -2022 from the Petitioner No.1, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondent No. l not to disconnect the power supply to the premises of petitioner No.'1 . lA NO: 1 OF 2022 : I I i I I I ; I I I I i I I I t1 i I l l n Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sup port of the petition, the High court may be plr:ased to grant stay of proceedings irr pursuance of the Notice dl 26-07 -2022, ssued by the RespondentNo.2vceLr.ADE/OP/Isnapur/F.No'HT/DNo'/i2;l-23,pending disposal of the above \Vrit Petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between:

1. The Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Ltd., Rep , by its Divisional Erigineer, Office at. Operation. TSSPDCL, Hyderabad

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation TSSPDCL, lsnapur Sr b-Division, Sang ReddY dislrict

3. Superintencling llngineer, TSSPDCL, Sangareddy, Sanga Reddy district ...PETITIONERSiRESPONDENTS AND lV/s SlCGlL. lndustrial Gases Ltd., Rep., by its Authorized Si1lnatory, Senior [Vlanager Iv1r. T.V.Suresh Kumar, S/o: Venkatasubramani, -:rged about .50 years," SGR- '064, lDA, Pashamylaram( V), Patancheru (l\'l), Sangareddy District. ...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS Petition unrler []ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstsnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 2311212022 in WP Nr:.45755 of 2022 and dismiss the \,\,rit p,rtition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAKASH CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC The Court made the lollowing: ORDER i. ni HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION N o. 4s755 of 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri Prakash .Chakravarti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Detitioner aDDroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in claiming the electricity bill amount of Rs.19,56,725/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven Only) (Figure in words and numerals is mismatching. Please check) through a Letter dated: o6-08- 2022 in pursuance of the Notice vide LT.ADE/OP /Isnapur/F.No .Hf /D.No./22-23, dt:26-O7-2022 from the Petitioner No.1, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 not to disconnect the power supply to the premises of petitioner No.1, and to grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " .,1 . 2 SN, J w 15'7 55 2022

3.Thecas€oFthepetitionerinbriefisthatthePetitioner No.1 is a I\4anufacturing Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its manufacturing unit located at Pashamylaram, Sangareddy District and the comparry's main object is t,f manufacture, process, and market industrial gases' including CO2 through refining/recycling and refilling of liquid CO2 and manufacturing dry ice. The Respondent No' '1, without following the orinciples of natural justice, issued notices dated 27.05.2022, )-6.O7.2022, and 06.08.2022, claiming that the Petitioner'SSe-ViceshouldbebilledunderHTCat-IIinsl:eadofHT Cat-I, demanding t19,56,7251-. The Petitioner replied to the notices, explaining that their unit is a manufacturing company, and as per the Central Excise Tariff, their activity is deemed to be manufactlre. However, the Respondent raised an invoice dated26-08.2022andthreateneddisconnectionofelectricity supply. The l)etitioner was compelled to pay ?8,92,6b6l- under duress, but s,leks relief, as billlng under HT Cat-II wt>uld cause irreparable m,)netary loss and change the very substarrce of their business. Herlce, the petitioner filed the present writ petition' 6 4 3 SN, J wP 15155 2022 This Court vide its ord r dated

23.12. O22. Da sed e under: ' "At the request of the Learned Counsel for the respondents, list on 27.L2-2022. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps in pursuance to the demand notice dated 26.07.2022." Co vt a V bv the soond nt No.2 and tn rticu la r, Daraq aoh N s 11 e a "9. It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioners in the Writ Affldavit do not in any way disclose that the petitioner is carrying on any manufacturing activity by utilizing the servicer connection bearing SC.No.SGR 1664 and the activity falls under commercial category and the billing as been done according to the Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the petitioner has to comply with the demand notice'

11. It is submitted that the demand notice has been raised for the entire period i.e., from the date of applicability of the tariff orders from the years 2016-17 4 ft. SN, J w' 457 55 2022 upto l-o 2022 and the petitioner is liable to pay the same. It is submitted that the Honorable Court by order dated 23.12.2022 in WP.No.457550f 2022: has directr:d tlre respondents not to take any coercive steps to the petitioners service connections. The petitioner is liable to ttay the entire demanded amount and if the o.6". i6trrd 23.12.2022 in WPNo.45755 of 2022 is not vacated il. will cause irreparable loss and injury to the Respondent company. "

6. PE THE REC

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents brings to the notice of this Court that in pursuance to the impugn3d notice dated 26.07.2022 issued to the petitioner by the Divisicnal Engineer (Operation), TGSPDCL, Isnapur Sub Division callinr; upon the petitioner to submit his reply and to file objections witlin seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. -fhe petitioner had submitted his representation in writing to the respondent No.3 and also attended thr: personal hearing conducted on 27.1O.2022 and put forth his objections pertaining to the provisional assessment and after detailed examination of the subject case, respondent No.3 passed final order daterl 31.10.2022 in Case No.SGRD/SGRD/ r { I l 5 SN. J wP 45755 2022 ISNP/HT2964/22 and the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the said final assessment order dated 31.10.2022 as on date. a. A bare perusal of the proceedings dated 31.10.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 herein, clearly indicates that the petitioner attended personal hearing conducted on 27.10.2022 and submitted a written representation putting forth petitioner's grievances and the same had been considered and final assessment order dated 31.70.2A22 had been passed by the 3'd respondent. 9 Takino into consideration: a) The submissions put forth by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, b) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 (referred to and extracted above) and, c) The contents of the final assessment order dated 3L.LO.2022 in Case No.SGRD/SGRD/ISNp/ HT2964/22, t I r'.4 i (: 6 SN, J lvP 45755 2022 d) The Interim orders dated 23'12'2o22 granted in favour of the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final assessment order dated }L.LO.2O22 within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the fact that final assessment order dated 3L.LO'2O22 hacl already been passed, the interim orders granted by this Court on 2g.L2.2O22 (referred to and extracted above) shall remain in force for a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order to enable the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available under law against the finat assessment order dated 3L-LO.2O22 issued to the petitioner by the 3'd respondent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if anl' pending, in the Writ Pe1:ition shall also stand closed. t t. .,-. L -t. //rRUE coPY// SDi- A.SRINIVASA REDDY AASTSTANT REGISTRAR \\\l\- = '! v sEcfloN oFFlcER

1. The Divisional t:ngineer, The Southern Power Distribution Cr:rnpany of T.S. Ltd., Office at. Operation. TSSPDCL, Hyderabad.

2. Assistant Divisi,:nal Engineer, Operation TSSPDCL, lsnapur S ub-Division, Sanq ReddY dir;trict

3. Suoerintending Engineer, TSSPDCL, Sangareddy, Sanga ReCdy district 4. One CC to Sri Prakashchakrava rthv, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri l,l. Sreedhar Reddy SCJOPUCI 6. Two CD CoPiet' i t I I ! i I I I I I t I I I To, T J I I . HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 6 ORDER WP.No.45755 of 2022 1 oR ( 03 t', -', fu* I." o a . -'_--- tlE .\,r,:\\....'.\ .1.. \ . ?,, r\' APR zt|fli , l i {). -.' /../ '. .2' , t,. u. | '--./ DISPOSING OF DTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @$,P