Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 716 (TS)

Manjeera Estates P. Limited v. State of Telangana

2025-05-28

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
JUDGMENT : This Writ Appeal was filed aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2025 in Writ Petition No. 13773 of 2025 wherein learned Single Judge imposed the condition of payment of 50% of the amount under the impugned demand bill dated 01.04.2025. 2. Learned counsel for appellant Sri D. Srinivas Prasad among other grounds raised, emphatically submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that order dated 30.08.2024 was passed by TGERC violating the principles of natural justice; likewise, even the impugned demand notice dated 01.02.2025 was raised without giving any notice to appellant. 3. Heard Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 4. The brief case of appellant is that they entered into a power purchase agreement dated 20.11.2024 with Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited (SRGEL), the Generator, under which, appellant paid all the invoice amounts regularly as and when raised. However, the SRGEL abruptly stopped the supply from August 2014 and then appellant contracted power supply from the 2 nd respondent. It is stated, there were no dues from appellant to the 2 nd respondent at any point of time. 5. While so, the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission had passed proceedings determining Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CCS) for the financial year 2005-06 in O.P.No.16 of 2005, 2006-07 in O.P.No.13 of 2006 and for 2007-08 in O.P.No. 56 of 2007 dated 21.09.2005, 29.08.2006 and 31.03.2007 respectively. The distribution companies sought for fresh determination of CSS for the financial years 2005-06 to 2012-13 by filing interlocutory applications in the proceedings initiated earlier for other financial years in O.P.Nos.5 of 2007, 73 of 2012, 74 of 2012, 75 of 2012, 76 of 2012 and 77 of 2012. The TGERC thereafter decided the matter by way of calling for objections after issuing public notice dated 08.08.2017 and decided the matter on 06.04.2018. The said orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 22191 of 2018 and batch on various grounds, including that principles of natural justice were not observed before deciding CSS and issuance of public notice is not sufficient under Rule 16(ii) and 17 of Regulation 2 of 2015. The said orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 22191 of 2018 and batch on various grounds, including that principles of natural justice were not observed before deciding CSS and issuance of public notice is not sufficient under Rule 16(ii) and 17 of Regulation 2 of 2015. The said batch of Writ Petitions came to be disposed on 12.02.2020 and this Court quashed the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the TGERC and remanded the matter for fresh determination of CSS after giving notice to the affected parties in terms of Clauses 16(ii) and 17 of the Regulation and to pass appropriate orders within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The said six month period expired in August 2020. This Court further granted liberty to parties to raise all objections as available to them under law before the TGERC and directed the TGERC to decide the cases for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. After remand, the respondents failed to issue any notice to the appellant and proceeded to pass the order dated 30.08.2024 fixing CSS and based on the said order, issued demand notice dated 01.02.2025 directing appellant to pay Rs.1,75,93,656/- under threat of disconnection. 6. Since the matter was remanded to TGERC and learned Single Judge also in the Writ Petition granted liberty to parties to raise all the objections as available to them under law before the TGERC which was directed to decide the cases for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06, without going into merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the appellant to file a representation before respondents. On such representation, respondents are directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Till then, no coercive steps shall be initiated against appellant. 7. The Writ Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.