ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. WRIT PETITION No. 8904 OF 2020 Petitioner is stated to have indulged in manufacturing activity of plastic produce which involves rolling of poly film with non-adhesive colours to produce self-designed poly film which is being used in the manufacture of paper plates. Initially, they obtained necessary registration certificate from the Industrial Department and subsequently, as per the policy of the Government, Udyog Aadhar Memorandum for the manufacture of above produce was obtained by petitioner from the District Industries Centre vide proceedings dated 02.01.2017. 1.1. It is stated, petitioner initially obtained 99 HP load and subsequently was sanctioned standby load of 99 HP power supply. During inspection being carried out at regular intervals, at no point of time, according to petitioner, any irregularities whatsoever have been pointed out as against their Service Connection (SC). The DPE wing conducted inspection on 05.02.2019, pursuant to which, the 3 rd respondent issued notice dated 21.02.2019 in respect of Service Connections No. 340505920 and 340501184; in both the notices, the 3rd respondent alleged that petitioner had been is using its service connections for printing purposes on the plastic sheet roles which is not a manufacturing activity; as per the Tariff order 2011-12, printing activity would come under LT Category-II i.e. commercial activity. Petitioner submitted explanation dated 11.03.2019 denying allegations and stating that they are carrying on manufacturing activity and not commercial activity, therefore, the service connections would come under LT category-III. 1.2. However, the 3 rd respondent passed provisional assessment order dated 07.05.2019, back-billing petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,35,502/- in respect of Service Connection No. 3405-05920 from 11.02.2018 to 11.04.2019 (alleged unit loss at 1,91,771) and in respect of Service Connection No. 3405-05920, Rs.5,40,477/- for the said period (alleged unit loss at 1,63,419). Petitioner submitted representation before the 2nd respondent on 01.07.2019. It is stated, the 2nd respondent dropped all the allegations made by the 3rd respondent and consequently, they entered into LT Agreement with petitioner for LT category-III (industrial) service connection. 1.3. To their surprise, it is stated, petitioner received another provisional assessment notice dated 06.02.2020 impugned in this Writ Petition from the 3 rd respondent wherein it is alleged that during inspection on 01.02.2020, petitioner was using power supply for printing purpose; as per the tariff order 2011-12, printing activity comes under LT category-II hence, they proposed back-bill to their service connection. Petitioner is stated to have submitted detailed representation on 17.03.2020 to the 2 nd respondent. Curiously, the 4 th respondent started issuing bills from April 2019 again billing petitioner under LT category –II (Commercial). The 4 th respondent collected the excess amount of Rs.6,07236/- under threat of disconnection. Apart from that, suddenly in the bill dated 11.06.2020, the 4th respondent included Rs.5,72,101/- which amount was demanded by the 3 rd respondent vide notice dated 06.02.2020. Hence, petitioner prays to declare the notice dated 06.02.2020 of the 3 rd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary. 2. This Court by order dated 24.06.2020 granted stay of collection of bills under LT category – II (Commercial) and also directed not to disconnect power supply. 3. During currency of above interim order, petitioner is stated to have received order dated 24.06.2020 of the 1 st respondent stating that on 01.02.2020, the 3rd respondent inspected petitioner’s premises and reiterating the allegations in the notice dated 06.02.2020 issued by the 2 nd respondent, the 3 rd respondent issued report dated 17.06.2020 based on which, the 2 nd respondent caused back billing to the tune of Rs.5,61,469/-. According to petitioner, the said action of the 2 nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, high-handed and contumacious. Hence, petitioner has taken out I.A.No. 3 of 2020 seeking amendment of prayer including challenge to the order dated 24.06.2020 of the 2 nd respondent. The said Application was ordered on 22.08.2023. 4. Seeking to vacate the interim order, a vacate petition was filed along with counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) stating that during inspection on 05.02.2019, the Detection of Pilferage of Energy (DPE) wing inspected petitioner company and found it utilizing the power supply for printing purposes i.e. printing on plastic sheet with ‘ROTO GRAVURE’ machines; as per tariff order 2018- 19 which is applicable at present also, the activity being carried on by petitioner falls under commercial category i.e. non- domestic LT category-II, but the service was being billed under LT Category-III which is applicable to industry. It is stated, at the time of obtaining service connection, petitioner had deliberately misrepresented about the activity they intend to undertake with an intention to gain wrongfully and to deprive the 1 st respondent company to apply the correct tariff. It is stated, at the time of obtaining service connection, petitioner had deliberately misrepresented about the activity they intend to undertake with an intention to gain wrongfully and to deprive the 1 st respondent company to apply the correct tariff. Since petitioner had noted the purpose for which the Service Connection is required as ‘industry’, it was provided under LT category-III, hence it is liable to pay the amount. 4.1. It is stated, based on the inspection conducted on 05.02.2019, as the activity carried on by petitioner is commercial, impugned demand notice was issued in respect of SC No. 3405-05920 as the service was being operated in the category other than the disclosed category, imposing back - billing for the period from 07.02.2019 to 01.02.2020, as a result of which, revenue loss to the 1 st respondent was assessed at Rs.5,72,001/-, hence, he was called upon to pay the amount. Previously also, petitioner was issued another demand notice dated 07.05.2019 in respect of the same service connection for the period from 11.02.2018 to 11.04.2019 for Rs.6,35,502/-. 4.2. This respondent states that they are entitled to impose tariff as per the Tariff orders issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC) exercising powers under Sections 62 and 64 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003. The contention of petitioner that they obtained registration with the Industries Department of the State Government and under the Goods and Service Tax Act of the Central Government is not binding on these respondents as they shall have to categorize the service connections based on the activity stipulated in the tariff orders. The activity being carried on by petitioner is not a manufacturing activity and the printing activity falls under LT – II commercial category and therefore, billing has to be done in the said category. It is also stated, petitioner seems to have relied on the renewed LT Agreement dated 05.08.2019 which is apparently obtained by suppressing the earlier demand notices; therefore they cannot be permitted to rely on the said agreement to contend that authorities have treated their service connection as that falling under LT-III industrial. The category of service has to be arrived at as per the tariff order basing on the activity that is being carried on by the consumers. The category of service has to be arrived at as per the tariff order basing on the activity that is being carried on by the consumers. Petitioner relying on the tariff orders for the year 2011-12, is trying to misguide this Court, whereas the applicable tariff order is 2018-19. 4.3. It is further stated that petitioner submitted representation aggrieved by the demand notice impugned to the Divisional Engineer, who, by proceedings dated 24.06.2020 rejected the said representation and also informed petitioner that if it is aggrieved by the said order, it has to file an Appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Operations within 30 days from the date of its receipt, however, without exhausting the said remedy, petitioner came up before this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Petitioner also filed the reply denying the averments in the counter. Further, it is stated, the officials of the 1st respondent does not have any expertise and competence to decide as to whether a consumer is carrying out any manufacturing activity or not. The presumption of the 3 rd respondent that petitioner’s activity comes under printing category is sheer hypothetical one, inasmuch as petitioner is producing self-designed poly film by rolling the poly film with non-adhesive colours. It is further stated that the issue raised herein is no more res-integra in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 43668 of 2022 dated 05.12.2022 based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India , [2016 (2) ALT (DB) 349] WRIT PETITION No. 18493 of 2023 6. After this Court passed the interim order in the above Writ Petition, on 24.06.2020, petitioner stopped its manufacturing activity; in view of the same, vide letter dated 15.06.2022, they addressed the 4th respondent for deration of its load from 84 to 5 KW to provide lighting load to petitioner’s premises; further vide letter dated 20.06.2022 addressed to the 4 th respondent, requested to stop the billing; later vide letter dated 15.10.2022, to give effect to the derated load of 5 KW followed by reminder letter dated 31.10.2022, however, respondent paid deaf year to the requests made by petitioner. 6.1. It is stated, as 1 KW load is sufficient to meet the lighting facility to petitioner’s unit, by letter dated 04.02.2023 petitioner requested the 3 rd respondent to reduce its load. 6.1. It is stated, as 1 KW load is sufficient to meet the lighting facility to petitioner’s unit, by letter dated 04.02.2023 petitioner requested the 3 rd respondent to reduce its load. It is relevant to submit here that Condition No. 5.9.4.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of supply of the 1st respondent deal with deration of contracted maximum demand of consumer, as per which, if a consumer seeks reduction of its contracted maximum demand, he can do so by issuing one month statutory notice in writing expressing his intention to derate his load. Petitioner at the first instance, gave a statutory notice dated 15.06.2022 seeking reduction from 84 to 5 KW and in terms of the above provision, the contracted load got derated to 5 KW by 15.06.2022 and from then onwards, petitioner’s contracted load shall be deemed to be treated as 5 KW instead of 84 KW. Similarly on 04.02.2023, petitioner gave statutory notice requesting for reduction of its load to 1 KW, hence, by operation of deemed provision, petitioner’s contracted load shall be treated as 1 KW instead of 5 KW with effect from 05.03.2023, but respondents, for no reason, are squatting on the issue conveniently billing petitioner unnecessarily at a higher level. From the date of issuing statutory notice, petitioner never crossed 1 KW load but on the other hand, respondents are resorting to bill petitioner at minimum level by demanding petitioner’s contracted load as 84 KW. 6.2. It is also stated, the lis involved in the preset case is no more res integra in view of the order passed by this Court in Makkariya Cotton and Oil Trading Company, Kondamadugu v. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Hyderabad , [ 2000(4) ALT 192 ] which decision was relied on by this Court in Writ Petition No. 22507 of 2011. 7. In the counter filed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, it is stated, petitioner submitted a representation for deration of load from 84 to 5 KW in October 2022, but has not registered any online complaint as stipulated ion Clause 5.9.4.2 of GTCS. It is also stated, petitioner has arrears of Rs.31,23,609/- up to February 2023; they paid CC bills under LT Category-III instead of LT category-II, hence accumulated arrears are to the tune of Rs.35,38,908 up to July, 2023. It is also stated, petitioner has arrears of Rs.31,23,609/- up to February 2023; they paid CC bills under LT Category-III instead of LT category-II, hence accumulated arrears are to the tune of Rs.35,38,908 up to July, 2023. It is further stated, petitioner has to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 in respect of their grievance in Writ Petition No. 8904 of 2020 as the dispute is in regard to the bill raised by the respondents. As petitioner has not availed the remedy, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. ****** 8. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri G. Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri R. Vinod Reddy, the then learned Standing Counsel for TS TRANSCO. 9. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the activity carried on by petitioner at its premises constitutes “manufacturing” of self- designed poly film by the process of rolling with non-adhesive colours, is not supported by any technical material or expert certification demonstrating transformation of raw material into a distinct commercial product; whereas respondents have consistently contended, based on multiple inspections including those by the Detection of Pilferage of Energy (DPE) Wing, that petitioner has been engaging in a printing activity using roto- gravure machines on plastic films — an activity that squarely falls under “commercial” use, as classified under LT Category-II of the prevailing Tariff Order 2018-19 issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC). It is well settled that categorization under the Electricity Tariff has to be based not on how the consumer describes itself for other statutory purposes (such as Udyog Aadhaar or GST registration), but on the actual nature of the activity being carried on at the premises, as per the applicable tariff classification determined by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. 10. Petitioner, in the reply affidavit, though disputes classification of service connection by asserting that the act of applying non-adhesive colour to poly film involves a manufacturing process, it may be noted that in the absence of persuasive evidence showing any material transformation, the said activity remains well within the scope of commercial usage. 10. Petitioner, in the reply affidavit, though disputes classification of service connection by asserting that the act of applying non-adhesive colour to poly film involves a manufacturing process, it may be noted that in the absence of persuasive evidence showing any material transformation, the said activity remains well within the scope of commercial usage. The petitioner's reliance on the renewed LT Category-III agreement dated 05.08.2019 is misplaced, as it is the specific contention of the respondent-authorities in the counter-affidavit that such agreement was entered into without full disclosure of prior inspection reports and provisional assessments. 11. Furthermore, this Court finds merit in the submission of respondents that petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy under the statutory framework, including filing an Appeal under the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 against the order of the Divisional Engineer dated 24.06.2020, and approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42 . The principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies is well recognised, particularly in matters involving billing disputes and tariff categorization under the ELECTRICITY ACT . The Court is of the view that there are no extraordinary circumstances shown by petitioner to warrant direct invocation of writ jurisdiction in the face of a clear statutory alternative. 12. This Court in a summary proceeding under Article 226 cannot decide the questions of fact, namely, whether petitioner’s actual usage — printing on poly film using Roto Gravure machines — is a manufacturing activity or commercial activity under the applicable tariff order (2018-19), and whether there was suppression/misrepresentation by petitioner at the time of obtaining service, and whether deration request was procedurally valid or acceptable, and also the validity of back- billing. In view of the dispute involving electricity usage classification and the scope of usage by petitioner for the alleged manufacturing using non-adhesive coating to poly films, and also the questions of fact that can be efficaciously remedied in the statutory Appeal, this Court is of the considered view that bypassing a statutory remedy of Appeal is not justifiable. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitions by relegating petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitions by relegating petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. 13. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 8904 of 2020 is disposed of, with liberty to petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are permitted to raise all the contentions sought to be raised before this Court. The interim order shall continue till filing of statutory Appeal. 14. As regards the issue of deration, it is not in dispute that petitioner made Application for deration of electricity supply in October, 2022; however, it is contended by the respondent – authorities in the counter that petitioner has not made on line application as stipulated under Clause 5.4.9.2 of the GTCS. Petitioner seriously disputes the necessity of submitting on line Application as per the said Clause. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the said clause which reads as under: “ 5.9.4.2. Deration of CMD or termination of Agreement in respect of HT Supply: The consumer may seek reduction of contracted maximum demand or termination of the HT Agreement after the expiry of the minimum period of the Agreement by giving not less than one month notice in writing expressing his intention to do so. However, if for any reason the consumer chooses to derate the CMD or terminate the Agreement, before the expiry of the minimum one year period of the Agreement, the CMD will be derated or the Agreement will be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of the initial one year period of the Agreement or after expiry of one month notice period whichever is later. The company can also terminate the HT Agreement, at any time giving one month notice if the consumer violates the terms of the HT Agreement, or the GTCS or the provision of any law touching the Agreement including the Act and rules made there under, and A.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1998. On termination of the HT Agreement, the consumer shall pay all sums due under the Agreement as on the date of its termination.” 15. On termination of the HT Agreement, the consumer shall pay all sums due under the Agreement as on the date of its termination.” 15. From a perusal of the above Clause, it is clear that there is no mandatory stipulation of on line Application and it is an admitted fact that petitioner made Application in October 2022. In that view of the matter, the excess charges levied since October 2022 by deeming the petitioner’s connection under LT- II category cannot be said to be in accordance with law; more so when it is the specific contention of petitioner that his usage is within the derated capacity. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay on the part of respondent authorities in acting on the Application made by petitioner long ago. 16. Reliance on earlier judgments, including the decision in Makkariya Cotton and Oil Trading Company, does not merit consideration, as the factual matrix of the present case — particularly the nature of manufacturing activity undertaken by petitioner and failure to follow procedural requirements — distinguishes the present case from Makkariya Cotton (supra), as Makkariya Cotton (supra) was a direct dispute due to non-compliance of contractual obligation and it does not address the specific context of electricity classification based on actual usage. 17. In that view of the matter, respondent authorities shall verify the actual usage of petitioner since the deration Application in October 2022 and accordingly levy the charge as per actual usage. Writ Petition No. 18493 of 2023 is accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 18. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.