ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. Since the lis in both these writ petition is inter se related with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2) Writ Petition No.21023 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief: “… calling for the records and to quash the orders dated: 14.12.2023 in C.G.No. 197/2023-24/Rajendranagar Circle as arbitrary, illegal unjust and contrary to the law and facts of the case and quash the same and pass……….” 3) Writ Petition No.24010 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief: “… declaring the action of the Respondents in disconnecting the power supply of the petitioner on 29.8.2024 for S.C. No.RJN 1561 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the letter issued by the SAO, Rajendranagar, TGSPDCL, Nanalnagar X Road, Rethibowli, Hyderabad – 500 028 vide letter No.SE/Op/RJNR/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.301/24 dated 2.8.2024 and pass …” 4) For narrating the facts leading to filing of these writ petitions, which are as under, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P. No.21023 of 2024: 4.1) Respondent No.1 is a Company involved in manufacturing of plastic bottles in the premises situated at E-10/IDA/Katedan, and it is provided with a service connection bearing SC No. RJN-1561 under HT Category. While so, on 10.03.2023 inspection of the said premises was conducted by the Divisional Engineer, Detection of Pilferage wing, in the presence of Mr. Khailash, Manager of R.1 Company, wherein one more service connection was found in the same premises bearing SC No.340506176 standing in the name of M/s.Kalika Polymers and respondent No.1 was utilizing the power supply for the same activity of packaging of plastic bottles. During the inspection, it was further found that the entrance of both the factories is common and the power supply from both the service connections is being utilized for manufacturing of end products i.e. plastic bottles. Based on the Inspection Report, the show cause notice dated 12.04.2023 was issued to respondent No.1 seeking to submit objections as to why the service connections should not be clubbed and billed together. As Respondent No.1 has not submitted any objections, the service connections were back billed by letter dated 19.06.2023 duly clubbing both the service connections under HT Category-1 for the period from April, 2022 to May, 2023, and respondent No.1 was requested to pay the difference amount of Rs.6,07,783/-. As Respondent No.1 has not submitted any objections, the service connections were back billed by letter dated 19.06.2023 duly clubbing both the service connections under HT Category-1 for the period from April, 2022 to May, 2023, and respondent No.1 was requested to pay the difference amount of Rs.6,07,783/-. Thereafter, a provisional assessment back billing notice dated 28.06.2023 was issued to respondent No.1 assessing the revenue loss of Rs.6,07,783/-. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 has filed a complaint before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) of TSSPDCL i.e. respondent No.2 herein vide C.G. No.197/2023-24/Rajendra- nagar circle. Vide order dated 14.12.2023 respondent No.2 has allowed the matter directing the petitioners herein to withdraw the back billing case amount of Rs.6,07,783/- included in CC bill for the month of July, 2023 and also to revise the bills considering the date of inspection i.e. 10.03.2023 under clubbing of services. Aggrieved by the same, TSSPDCL has filed W.P. No.21023 of 2024. 4.2) Subsequently, petitioner No.6 has issued another notice vide Lr.No.SE/Op/RJNR/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.301/24, dated 2.8.2024, to respondent No.1 directing to arrange the back billing amount of Rs.6,07,783/- immediately to avoid disconnection of supply, purportedly on the basis of the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by CGRF. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.24010 of 2024 wherein this Court has granted interim order on 30.08.2024 directing restoration of power supply. 5) Heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing for petitioners in W.P.No.21023 of 2024 and respondents in W.P. No.24010 of 2024, and Ms. Nishta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 in W.P. No.21023 of 2024 and petitioner in W.P. No.24010 of 2024. 6) Learned Standing Counsel has contended that the CGRF, having held that both the service connections are to be clubbed together, has erred in directing the TSSPDCL to withdraw the back billing amount and also to revise the bills and the same is contrary to law and against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. It is further contended that CGRF also erred in law by not taking into consideration clause 3.5 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) which stipulates that that the Petitioner Company is empowered to club all the service connections located in the same premises as the power supply being utilized to produce a common end product. It is further contended that CGRF also erred in law by not taking into consideration clause 3.5 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) which stipulates that that the Petitioner Company is empowered to club all the service connections located in the same premises as the power supply being utilized to produce a common end product. Further, CGRF should also have taken note of the fact that as GTCS stipulate that when any Firm, Company, individual utilize the power supply for producing the same product from different service connections, both the service connections should be clubbed together and back billed. It is further contended that the CGRF has erred in setting aside the demand raised as the GTCS is of statutory in nature and if any person is aggrieved by the same, the remedy is to approach the TSERC or file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Reliance has been placed on Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar, (2010) 7 SCC 569 . Hence, it is prayed to allow W.P. No.21023 of 2024 and dismiss W.P. No.24010 of 2024. 7) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-consumer has submitted that CGRF duly relying on the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No.6493 of 2016 and the similar order passed by CGRT-II in CG No.106/2022- 2023/Hyderabad/South Circle, dated 26.09.2022, has rightly passed the order dated 14.12.2023 setting aside the demand for back billing prior to the date of inspection while confirming the action of TSSPDCL in clubbing two service connections. Therefore, there are no merits in W.P. No.21023 of 2024 and prayed to dismiss the said writ petition. Resultantly, learned counsel has contended that the order dated 02.08.2024 impugned in W.P.No.24010 of 2024 is unsustainable under the law and prayed to allow W.P.No.24010 of 2024. 8) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the record. 9) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, respondent No.1-Complainant in W.P. No.21023 of 2024 filed C.G.No.197/2023-24/Rajendra Nagar Circle, challenging the claim made by TSSPDCL of Rs.6,07,783/- towards back billing in bill dated 01.08.2023. 10) The only lis to be decided by this Court is whether the TSSPDCL is entitled for the amount of Rs.6,07,783/- demanded vide provisional assessment notice dated 01.08.2023 under the caption ‘Back Billing’? 10) The only lis to be decided by this Court is whether the TSSPDCL is entitled for the amount of Rs.6,07,783/- demanded vide provisional assessment notice dated 01.08.2023 under the caption ‘Back Billing’? 11) Here, it is relevant to refer clause 12.3.3.2 (i) of General Terms and Conditions of Supply. 12.3.3. Additional Connected Loads detected in LT Services Cases 12.3.3.1. ……… 12.3.3.2 Cases where the total Connected Load is above 75 HP/56 kW or i) These services shall be billed at the respective HT tariff rates from the consumption month in which the un-authorized additional load is detected . For this purpose, 80% of Connected Load shall be taken as billing demand. The quantity of electricity consumed in any Month shall be computed by adding 3% extra on account of transformation losses to the energy recorded in LT Meter. (emphasis added) 12) From the above provision of law, it is thus clear that the licensee i.e. TSSPDCL herein is entitled to bill the service at HT tariff only from the consumption month in which the unauthorized additional load is detected i.e. 10.03.2023 in the present case. In that view of the matter, as rightly held by respondent No.2 Forum, the back billing issued by TSSPDCL prior to date of inspection is contrary to the above provision of law. Further, the CGRF also directed the TSSPDCL to revise the bills considering the date of inspection. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the CGRF in C.G. No.197/2023- 24/Rajendranagar Circle, there are no merits in W.P. No.21023 of 2024 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13) Insofar as W.P. No.24010 of 2024 is concerned, in view of the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by CGRF in C.G. No.197/2023- 24/Rajendranagar Circle, the action of TSSPDCL in issuing letter No.SE/Op/RJNR/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.301/24, dated 02.08.2024 demanding to arrange back billing amount of Rs.6,07,783/- cannot stand scrutiny of the Court and accordingly the same is set aside. 14) In the result, W.P. No.21023 of 2024 is dismissed and W.P. No.24010 of 2024 is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.