Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 644 (TS)

Vodafone Idea Limited v. State of Telangana

2025-05-07

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri P.Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “…to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in passing the Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/ SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/ D.No.655/ 24-25, dated 14.02.2025 and Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO- HT/HBG 1467/ D.No.51, dated 02.05.2025 which was received on 05.05.2025 issued by Respondent No.4 as per the common order passed by the Respondent No.2 in O.P.16 of 2005 and batch dated 30.08.2024 re- determining the Cross Subsidy Surcharge CSS purported to be exercising powers under Sections 39 (2)(d)(ii) , 40 (c)(ii) and 42 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 2003) for the FY 2005-06 to FY 2014-15 to be recovered from the consumers who availed power supply through open access as arbitrary illegal contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 , Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission Conduct of Business Regulation 2015 more particularly Regulation No.2 of 2015 and in violation of principles of natural justice besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/ OP/ HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO-HT/HBG 467/ D.No.51, dated 02.05.2025 which was received on 05.05.2025 and Lr.No. SE/ OP/ HBG/ SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/ D.No.655/2425, dated 14.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.4.” 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:- It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.4 issued the Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/ SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/ D.No.655/ 24-25, dated 14.02.2025 calling upon the petitioner to pay the Cross subsidy surcharge amount of Rs.1,16,08,030.00/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Eight thousand thirty only) within 15 days from the date of issue of the said demand notice. It was further stipulated in the said notice that failure on the part of the petitioner to do so within the stipulated period would lead to raising of the said Cross subsidy surcharges in the regular C.C Charge bills as per the rules in voque, without any further notice and the subject service will be ordered for disconnection. It is further the case of the petitioner that in response to the said impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025, the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 22.04.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation(Circle), Habsiguda, TGSPDCL requested for review of the impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025 explaining very clearly vide the said letter that as per the agreement existing between the power generation company with the petitioner company, the Cross -Subsidy Surcharge or any other charges, if any shall be paid by the power generation company alone and the petitioner company is not liable to pay any charges other than the cost of the power, and therefore, the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 needs to be revoked with immediate effect and the same needs to be withdrawn with immediate effect duly reviewing the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025. It is further the specific case of the petitioner that in spite of petitioner’s detailed representation, dated 22.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner in response to the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL addressed to the said Authority, curiously without considering the same, the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that the petitioner is liable to pay the charges determined by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time as per the HT Agreement, clause No.8, dated 20.10.2019 and further the petitioner was called upon to clear the notices issued against CSS or make necessary arrangements for payments. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A. The relevant portion of the impugned notice Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO-HT/JAO/HT/D.No.655, dated 14.02.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL issued to the petitioner is extracted hereunder:- “…Hence SC NO HBG1467 (RRE1467) M/s.Vodafon Idea Limited s liable to pay the Cross Subsidy Surcharge amount of Rs.1,16,08030.00 (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Eight Thousand Thirty Only) within (15) fifteen days from the date of issue of this demand notice. Further, it is to inform that, in case of any doubts/clarifications it is requested to approach this office during office hours along with relevant records (i.e., agreement copies of captive power, third party if any) of reconciliation. Failure to do so within the stipulated period, the said Cross Subsidy Surcharges will be raised in the regular C.C charge Bills as per rules in vogue, without any further notice and service will be ordered for disconnection.” B. The proceedings Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO- HT/HBG 1467/D.NO.51, dated 02.05.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation/ Habsiguda Circle, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad issued to the petitioner after due consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 22.04.2025 is extracted hereunder:- …“1. There is no captive power consumption agreement between M/s.SKJ Power Projects Limited and M/s.Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 2. M/s.Vodafone Idea Limited – HBG1467 is liable to pay the charges determined by state electricity regulatory commission from time to time as per the HT agreement, clause No.8, dated 28.10.2019. 3. As seen from the pow er purchase agreement copy enclosed in reference 2 nd cited, M/ s. SKJ Power Projects Limited indemnifies the consumer (M/ s.Vodafone Idea Limited) against any charges (including CSS) levied by the distribution companies related to third party sale. Hence, the notices issued against CSS may be cleared or make necessary arrangements for payments.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 and the consequential proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsiguda Circle, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad issued to the petitioner are illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and are orders passed in a routine manner without duly examining the terms of the power purchase agreement since a bare perusal of the said terms would indicate that the liability for the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge rests with the power generating company as per the agreement’s terms. ii) The superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsiguda circle, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad failed to consider the detailed representation furnished by the petitioner, dated 22.04.2025 in response to the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the said Authority and mechanically rejected the petitioner’s request for revoking the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 vide the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025, without application of mind, in a routine manner, contrary to the terms of the power purchase agreement existing between the power generation company and the petitioner’s company and the same was illegal and liable to be set-aside. iii) The impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 and the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL issued to the petitioner are in clear violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner had not been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and hence, liable to be set-aside. iv) The impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 needs to be set-aside and the matter remitted to the Authority concerned for reconsideration of the subject issue afresh by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The petitioner is not entitled for grant of the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. ii) There is no illegality in issuing the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 and the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Habsiguda Circle, TGSPDCL, rejecting petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025, seeking revocation of the impugned demand made vide impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025. iii) In view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025 had been considered and proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued, there cannot be any further consideration of the subject issue by the respondent company. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 contends that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:- 7. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 contends that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:- 7. It is specific case of the petitioner that in response to the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL, the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 22.04.2025 addressed to the said Authority requested for review of the impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025 and to withdraw the same with immediate effect and further requested to schedule a meeting to resolve the subject issue amicably. 8. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that the contents of the petitioner’s detailed representation addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL had not been considered in a proper perspective duly examining the terms of agreement entered into between the power generation company and the petitioner company and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing mechanically in a routine manner the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL reiterating that the petitioner company is liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner. 9. Duly considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner w as denied an opportunity of personal hearing prior to issuance of the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 and upon the specific query of this Court pertaining to the said issue, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent company in reply to the said query does not dispute the fact that the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity of personal hearing prior to issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL. 10. 10. I n view of the fact that the petitioner had not been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner vide his representation, dated 22.04.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL requested to schedule a meeting to resolve the subject issue and the same how ever had not been considered and the petitioner had not been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing prior to considering petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025 and prior to issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad, this Court opines that the subject issue needs reconsideration by the concerned Authority in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 11. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 do not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner for providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and for reconsideration of petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025 in accordance to law 12. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. c) The contents of the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL addressed to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the representation dated 22.04.2025 of the petitioner addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL. e) The contents of the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL rejecting petitioner’s request for withdrawing the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above). e) The contents of the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL rejecting petitioner’s request for withdrawing the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.04.2025, in response to the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL, and also its decision made vide the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025, in accordance to law , in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. Till the exercise as indicated as above is initiated and concluded by passing of appropriate orders by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL duly reconsidering the petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025, as per the specific directions as issued as above within the time period as stipulated as above, the respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/ Habsiguda, TGSPDCL How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.