Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1597 (TS)

chief General Manager v. Ankit Packaging limited

2025-11-21

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the 2 nd respondent - Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, dated 23.10.2023. 2. The case of petitioners – TGSPDCL is that the 1st respondent is a HT Consumer vide HT SC No. MDK 558 (SGR 558); power supply was released on 28.01.1993 and it was disconnected on 30.12.2009 due to non-payment of Current Consumption Charges. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent sought restoration of power supply under Sick Industries Revival Scheme. In that regard, petitioners and the 1st respondent entered into a separate HT Agreement on 10.05.2010 and power supply was restored on 11.05.2010 under the provisions of Sick Industries Revival Scheme. As the 1 st respondent has once again defaulted in payment of C.C. Charges, power supply was disconnected by petitioners on 09.08.2010. In spite of several notices, dues amounting to Rs. 12,30,603/- were not paid by the 1 st respondent. Therefore, as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS in short), the HT Agreement of the 1 st respondent was terminated on 10.05.2012 ie. after completion of minimum guaranteed period of two years from the date of HT Agreement dated 10.05.2010. 2.1. Thereafter, petitioners initiated steps for recovery of amounts from the 1 st respondent under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 and APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 and issued Notice in Form ‘A’ dated 21.08.2018 for recovery of Rs. 9,15,530/- after adjusting the available security deposit of Rs. 3,25,254/-. As there was no response from the 1st respondent, Notice in Form ‘B’ was issued on 31.08.2019 for payment of Rs. 21,36,882/ which includes surcharge from the date of termination of agreement of the 1 st respondent. Petitioners have also addressed letter to the District Collector for recovery of electricity arrears under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, by attaching and sale of immovable property belonging to the 1 st respondent. 2.2. At that stage, the 1 st respondent made representations dated 19.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 for restoration of power supply and waiver of surcharge. As petitioners do not have power to waive surcharge, a letter was addressed to the 1st respondent dated 15.12.2021 to pay Rs. 21,36,882/-. 2.2. At that stage, the 1 st respondent made representations dated 19.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 for restoration of power supply and waiver of surcharge. As petitioners do not have power to waive surcharge, a letter was addressed to the 1st respondent dated 15.12.2021 to pay Rs. 21,36,882/-. The 1 st respondent then approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) by filing a Complaint vide No. CG/664/22-23/Sangareddy Circle, to set aside the notice issued under Revenue Recovery Act for an amount of Rs. 21,36,882/ and to waive penal charges including surcharge from the date of disconnection of power supply and also for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 3,25,254/-. The CGRF rejected the complaint of the 1 st respondent by Award dated 10.08.2023. 2.3. Aggrieved by the said rejection order of CGRF, the 1st respondent filed Appeal before the 2nd Respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) in Appeal No. 28/2023-24. The said Appeal was partly allowed by Award dated 03.10.2023, directing petitioners to collect Rs. 21,36,882/- as mentioned in notice issued in Form ‘B without levying any further surcharge. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy submits that for every delayed payment by the consumer, surcharge is imposed as per the orders issued by Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘the Commission’) and the 2 nd Respondent can only follow the said provisions of law and pass orders, whereas in the case on hand, the 2nd Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and directed petitioners not to levy any further surcharge beyond the notice issued in Form ‘B’ dated 31.08.2019. Therefore, the Award of the 2 nd Respondent is beyond its jurisdiction. He further contends that as the impugned Award passed by the 2nd Respondent is without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside to the extent of directing petitioners to collect only Rs. 21,36,882/- as mentioned in the Notice issued in Form ‘B’ without levying any surcharge. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent Ms. Nishta argued that as per the directions of the 2nd Respondent in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, the 1st respondent paid the entire amount of Rs. 21,36,882/- along with additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards delay vide DD No. 323228 dated 18.09.2024 and DD No. 323242 dated 25.09.2024 and the same were received by petitioners. Nishta argued that as per the directions of the 2nd Respondent in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, the 1st respondent paid the entire amount of Rs. 21,36,882/- along with additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards delay vide DD No. 323228 dated 18.09.2024 and DD No. 323242 dated 25.09.2024 and the same were received by petitioners. It is further contended that surcharge on the delayed payment can be collected only from the date of termination of agreement and not beyond the same. It is further contended that statutory period of two years shall be reckoned from the date of the first agreement i.e. from 28.01.1993 and not from 10.05.2010, therefore, petitioners ought to have terminated the agreement as on the date of disconnection i.e. 09.08.2010. Petitioners were not entitled to levy surcharge beyond the date of disconnection for non- payment of C.C. charges and termination of agreement ought to have taken place on 09.08.2010 as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of GTCS and not on 10.05.2012 which is done in the case on hand. It is further contended that in any event, the entire amount as directed by the 2nd Respondent along with additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the 1 st respondent by way of Demand Drafts and the same were acknowledged by petitioners. The 2 nd Respondent has therefore, rightly allowed the Appeal filed by the 1 st respondent in part and there is no illegality or irregularity in the Award. There are no merits in the Writ Petition, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed, contends learned counsel. 5. In reply, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners contends that the Commission (TGERC) has framed electricity Supply Code vide Regulation 5 of 2004, as per which the licencee is entitled to collect additional charges for delayed payment of bills by imposing surcharge. It was stated that every consumer is liable to pay the delayed payment surcharge on the bill amount as per the Retail Tariff Orders issued by the ERC from time to time following are the rates extracted here below. "Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) LT CATEGORY a. In case of LT-I (A), LT-I (B), LT II (A), LT II (D), LT IV and LT V(B), if payment is made after due date, the consumers are liable to pay, Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) per month on the bill amount at the rates given in the table below. "Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) LT CATEGORY a. In case of LT-I (A), LT-I (B), LT II (A), LT II (D), LT IV and LT V(B), if payment is made after due date, the consumers are liable to pay, Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) per month on the bill amount at the rates given in the table below. LT I (A) Rs. 10 per month LT I(B), LT II(A), LT II(D), LT IV & LT V(B) Rs. 25 per month b. In case of LT II (B), LT II (C), LT III, LT VI and LT VII and LT IX, the Licensee shall levy Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) on the bill amount at the rate of 5 paise/Rs.100/day calculated from the due date mentioned on the bill, upto the date of payment of Rs. 150 whichever is higher. In case of grant of installments, the Licensee shall levy interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the outstanding amounts compounded annually and the two (DPS and interest) shall not be levied at the same time. HT CATEGORY The Licensee shall charge the Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) per month on the bill amount at the rate of 5 paise/Rs. 100/day or Rs.550 whichever is higher. In case of grant of instalments, the Licensee shall levy interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the outstanding amounts, compounded annually and the two charges shall not be levied at the same time". 5.1. As the Service Connection of the 1 st respondent is under HT Category, the Licensee is entitled for Delayed Payment Surcharge on the bill amount at the rate of 5 paise/Rs.100/day or Rs.550 whichever is higher. Further, in case of grant of installments, the Licensee is entitled to levy interest @ 18% p.a. on the outstanding amounts, compounded annually. Since the 2nd Respondent did not consider these aspects, it has exceeded its jurisdiction and allowed the Appeal filed by the 1st respondent in part directing petitioners not to levy any further surcharge beyond the notice issued in Form ‘B’ dated 31.08.2019. The Vidyuth Ombudsman is entitled to pass Award strictly in accordance with the Electricity Act 2003, Regulations framed by the Regulatory Commission from time to time or following any judgment of the Constitutional Courts. The Vidyuth Ombudsman is entitled to pass Award strictly in accordance with the Electricity Act 2003, Regulations framed by the Regulatory Commission from time to time or following any judgment of the Constitutional Courts. Viewing from any angle, the Award of the 2 nd Respondent is not supported by any provision of law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions and on perusing the Regulations framed by Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission, and the tariff orders of the ERC, wherein the Licensee is entitled to levy Delayed Payment Surcharge, holds that the 2 nd Respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that petitioners were not entitled to levy any further surcharge beyond the date of Form ‘B’ Notice dated 31.08.2019. The 2nd Respondent has not referred to or relied on any provision of law for coming to such conclusion. Therefore the Award passed by the 2 nd Respondent Vidyuth Ombudsman is beyond its jurisdiction, hence the same is hereby set aside. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.