ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This writ Petition is filed questioning the Award dated 29.01.2025 in Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25 on the file of the 1 st respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) and to set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Retail Supply Tariff Orders issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission and General Terms and Conditions of Supply. 2. The case of petitioners is that the 3 rd respondent- consumer has a service connection bearing No. 562500810 under LT-III (Industrial) category with a contracted load of 99 HP. During March and June 2020, the consumer exceeded the contracted load by utilising 100.06 HP and 104.90 HP respectively. In accordance with Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS), any service recording demand above 75 KVA attracts HT-I (11 KV) tariff. Accordingly, billing under HT-I category and posting of HT flag were made lawfully and in conformity with the applicable tariff provisions. It is stated that Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Greater Hyderabad Area, after examining the consumer's complaints in CG Nos. 27 and 38 of 2020-21, by order dated 30.09.2020, dismissed the same holding that billing under HT-I (11 KV) Industrial category was in strict accordance with the provisions of the Retail Supply Tariff Order and the GTCS. The Forum observed that recorded demand having exceeded 75 KVA, billing under HT tariff was justified and that consumer could not seek to be billed under LT-III category. 2.1. Aggrieved by the CGRF order, consumer preferred Appeal No. 17 of 2020-21 before the Hon'ble Vidyut Ombudsman, Telangana State, which was allowed by Award dated 15.01.2021. Petitioners challenged the said Award before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9257 of 2021. This Court, by common order dated 10.12.2024, set aside the Award on the ground that it had been passed by a person not qualified to hold the post of Ombudsman as per Regulation 3.6 of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Vidyut Ombudsman and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2015. Subsequently, after appointment of a qualified Ombudsman, the consumer again filed Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25. Subsequently, after appointment of a qualified Ombudsman, the consumer again filed Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25. The Ombudsman, by the impugned Award dated 29.01.2025, directed petitioners to remove the HT flag, revise the electricity bills for the period from April 2020 to September 2023 restricting HT billing only to the portion of demand recorded above 75 KVA, and to refund the balance amount with interest at 9% per annum. 2.2. Petitioners state that the Ombudsman gravely erred in interpreting Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS. It is contended that the language of Clause 7.5.3 clearly mandates that once the recorded demand exceeds 75 KVA, the entire consumption from that month onwards shall be billed under HT-I (11 KV) tariff until the unauthorized load is removed and certified by the competent authority. The clause does not permit partial billing confined to the excess demand alone. It is further contended that Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS stipulates that where the connected load exceeds 75 HP (subsequently revised to 100 HP), service shall be billed under HT-1 (11 KV) category for the entire period until the excess load is rectified. It is argued that these provisions are intended to ensure load regulation, safety of network infrastructure and system stability, therefore, cannot be diluted or interpreted selectively. 2.3. Petitioners assert that the Ombudsman's interpretation effectively rewrites the Tariff clause by restricting the HT billing to the portion exceeding 75 KVA, contrary to the express wording of the provision. It is further stated that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to direct refund of collected amounts and award interest at 9% per annum, as such relief is beyond the scope of the Regulations. It is argued that CGRF's decision was based on a correct interpretation of the Tariff Order and the GTCS, and there was no ground for interference. 3. The 3 rd respondent-consumer filed a counter affidavit contending that impugned Award of the Ombudsman is legal, valid and based on correct appreciation of facts and applicable tariff provisions. The consumer admits that recorded demand marginally exceeded 75 KVA during a few months due to operational variations but maintains that such occasional excess cannot justify conversion of the entire billing to HT-I category. The consumer admits that recorded demand marginally exceeded 75 KVA during a few months due to operational variations but maintains that such occasional excess cannot justify conversion of the entire billing to HT-I category. Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff refers only to "recorded demand" and not to "connected load." Therefore, the HT tariff, at the most, applies only to the recorded demand in excess of 75 KVA for the relevant billing months and not to the entire consumption. It is further contended that Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS deals with cases where the connected load physically exceeds 75 HP, which is not applicable to the present case, as the consumer's connected load remained at 99 HP and did not exceed the revised limit of 100 HP. 3.1. The consumer states that the Ombudsman rightly harmonized both the clauses and concluded that only the recorded demand over 75 KVA should attract HT tariff, while the rest of the consumption continues under LT-III category. It is argued that this approach ensures fairness and consistency with the wording of the Tariff Order. The direction for refund with interest was issued as a logical consequence of wrongful excess billing. The Ombudsman, being a statutory Appellate Authority, has the power to grant consequential relief, including refund of excess amounts collected. It is therefore, prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of merit. 4. Heard Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of petitioners and Ms. Nishitha, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and examined the material on record. It is an admitted fact that consumer's recorded demand exceeded 75 KVA during the relevant period and the 3 rd respondent posted an HT flag and raised bills under HT-1 (11 KV) Industrial category. The dispute essentially turns on the interpretation of Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS. The said Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff clearly stipulates that whenever the recorded demand exceeds 75 KVA, the demand charges applicable under HT-I (11 KV) Industrial category shall apply. The dispute essentially turns on the interpretation of Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS. The said Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff clearly stipulates that whenever the recorded demand exceeds 75 KVA, the demand charges applicable under HT-I (11 KV) Industrial category shall apply. Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS, which operates in tandem with the tariff provisions, mandates that where the total connected load exceeds 75 HP (later revised to 100 HP), the service shall be billed under HT category until such excess is removed. These provisions are designed to maintain uniformity in classification and prevent overloading of LT systems. 6. In the present case, the records show that both the connected load and the recorded demand exceeded the LT threshold. Therefore, posting of HT flag and billing under HT-1 (11 KV) category was justified and in accordance with the Tariff Order and GTCS. The Ombudsman's reasoning that only the portion exceeding 75 KVA should attract HT tariff is contrary to the express language of the clauses and amounts to a partial reading of the regulatory scheme. This Court finds that CGRF correctly appreciated the facts and law and rightly upheld the billing under HT-I category. The Ombudsman's interpretation, which effectively dilutes the tariff condition and limits HT billing only to the excess recorded demand, is unsustainable. The direction for refund and interest at 9% per annum also travels beyond the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as the Regulations do not confer power to order refund with interest in such cases. 7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the Award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman, Telangana State in Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25 suffers from legal infirmity, being contrary to the Tariff Orders and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. The same is therefore, liable to be set aside. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The Award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman, Telangana State in Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25 is hereby set aside. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.