ORDER : 1. For disposal of the above batch of Writ Petitions, which are similar in nature, the facts in Writ Petition No. 5533 of 2024 are taken up for discussion. 2. The case of petitioner is that the 1 st respondent – South Central Railways has been provided with a load of 14000 KVA and it filed an Application on 06.07.2022 for enhancement of load to 19500 KVA i.e. additionally 5500 KVA. The estimate for the enhanced capacity was sanctioned by the Chief General Manager (Commercial) vide Memo dated 29.12.2022 at the estimated cost of Rs.55,01,562/- and the same was informed to the 1st respondent vide above memo. 2.1. It is also stated, the Divisional Engineer, Detection of Pilferage (DPE) Wing inspected the meter of the 1 st respondent and informed them vide letter dated 16.02.2023 to take further steps in the matter to meet technical parameter that separate CT and PTs. for metering the services should be provided at the site. The Superintending Engineer, TRANSCO addressed the letter dated 01.05.2023 to the Chief Electrical Engineer, South Central Railway to provide 0.2 Class CT for both 132 Circle I and II for metering at the earliest. As the 1 st respondent failed to respond, a reminder letter dated 17.06.2023 was addressed to the South Central Railway. 2.2. Petitioners state that the 1st respondent paid the estimated amount of Rs.55,01,562/- to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Bhongir on 25.04.2023 but did not comply with the technical requirements. It is stated, as the 1 st respondent exceeded the contracted maximum demand of 14000 KVA from September, 2022, penal charges were levied as per the tariff orders issued by the TSERC. The 1 st respondent without complying with the instructions of TSSPDCL, approached the 2 nd respondent against the penal charges stating that the TSERC has issued Licensee Standards of Performance Regulation No. 56 of 2016 to be adhered to by the Licensee/ DISCOMS in respect of providing service connections and complying with the other conditions. It has also taken the ground that as per Clause 5.2 of the Regulation No. 5 of 2016, the time limit prescribed to provide extra High Tension service connection is 180 days but as petitioners failed to provide the said connection within the said time, they are not entitled to levy the penalties. It has also taken the ground that as per Clause 5.2 of the Regulation No. 5 of 2016, the time limit prescribed to provide extra High Tension service connection is 180 days but as petitioners failed to provide the said connection within the said time, they are not entitled to levy the penalties. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 18.10.2023, held that there is a delay of 154 days as against the time fixed, hence, directed petitioners herein to issue revised bills for the said period of 154 days for the bills already issued, as additional CMD is deemed to have been released treating the CMD of the service connection as 19500 KVA and adjust the excess paid amount to the future bills of the 1st respondent. 2.3 It is also stated, based on the undertaking of the 1 st respondent dated 26.09.2023, the additional load was released on 27.09.2023, but 1 st respondent had not complied with the technical requirements. The 1 st respondent aggrieved by the orders of the CGRF dated 18.10.2023, filed Appeal before the 3rd respondent bearing Appeal No. 41 of 2023-24 mainly contending that they applied for enhancing the load from 14000 to 19500 KVA on 06.07.2022; the period of six months was completed on 05.02.2023 but instead of enhancing the load, petitioners collected the penal charges from 06.01.2023 at Rs.1,14,10,590/- raised for exceeding the CMD. The grievance of petitioners is that the 3 rd respondent without taking into consideration the written statement filed by them which goes to prove that fault is on the part of the 1 st respondent has come to the conclusion that there is delay of 180 days in providing the enhanced load and thereby directed petitioners to issue the revised bills for the period of 180 days for the bills already issued, as additional CMD is deemed to have been released i.e. treating the CMD of service as 19500 KVA and adjust the excess paid amount towards the future bills of the 1 st respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. This Court by order dated 05.03.2024 granted interim stay as prayed for. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. This Court by order dated 05.03.2024 granted interim stay as prayed for. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy contends that the 3 rd respondent - Vidyut Ombudsman and the 2 nd respondent - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, without properly calculating the delay and without taking into consideration that it was for the Respondent-South Central Railway to provide 0.2s Class C.Ts. (Current Transformers) and 0.2 Class PTs (Potential Transformers) for both 132 Circuit I and II for metering, passed the impugned orders holding that petitioners have delayed in sanctioning the additional load requested by the respondent South Central Railways. It is contended that petitioners have addressed communication to the respondent - Railways to provide the required CTs and PTs at the earliest, and as they failed to respond, the enhanced load could not be released and that the delay that has occurred cannot be attributed solely to petitioners but has to make the Respondent-Railway Department also responsible. 4.1. Learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners further contends that as per Clause 5.2 of Regulation No.5 of 2016, time frame is fixed for extension of distribution mains, and the Licensee shall acknowledge receipt of the Application within two days from the date of making Application, and shall intimate to the consumer within 45 days from the date of acknowledgement for payment of Security Deposit and other charges as applicable and within 180 days from the date of payment of the required Security Deposit and other charges, load shall be released. It is contended that as the Respondent Railway Department has applied for Extra High Tension (33 KV), the Licensee shall intimate to the applicant, in writing, the amount of security deposit and other charges payable within 45 days of receipt of the Application and the supply of electricity shall be effected by the licensee within a time limit of 180 days from the date of payment of security deposit and other charges by the consumer. It is further argued that both the Respondents 2 and 3, have given their own interpretations regarding the delay in release of the additional load, without deciding the unresponsiveness of the respondent railway in providing suitable CTs and PTs. It is contended that it was for the Respondent-Railway Department to provide the required CTs and PTs for accurate reading of the meter. 4.2. It is contended that it was for the Respondent-Railway Department to provide the required CTs and PTs for accurate reading of the meter. 4.2. Learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter addressed by the Divisional Engineer, Elecl. Operation, TSSPDCL to the Divisional Railway Manager, Aler Traction dated 08.03.2023 informing that on inspection by the Divisional Engineer, HT Meters II, it was observed that CTs and PTs are provided for both purposes i.e. protection and metering. Therefore, separate CTs and PTs are to be provided for metering purpose and requested to arrange to provide the metering CTs and PTs for metering the service and also may provide additional bay, if required. Despite, as the respondent Railway Department has not responded to the same, additional load could not be released. This aspect has not been referred to by both the Authorities. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Award passed by the 3 rd respondent in Appeal No. 41/2023-24 wherein at para 23 it has been recorded that additional load was released on 27.09.2023 after undertaking given by the consumer on 26.09.2023 for replacement of the existing CTs and PTs with suitable capacity and accuracy and the estimate charges were intimated to the Railways for an amount of Rs. 14,24,671. This clearly shows that the responsibility lies with the respondents to provide CTs and PTs which are suitable for meter accuracy, and only on 26.09.2023, respondent consumer has undertaken to provide the same and till such time would limit their R.M.D. within the limit of C.M.D. for safe operation of the grid factor. The Standing Counsel therefore, contends that as this issue has not been taken into consideration by the CGRF and the Vidyuth Ombudsman, both the orders passed by them be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration as to who is responsible for the delay and how much delay has been caused by petitioners for release of additional load, in accordance with law. 5. 5. Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for Respondent No.1 based on the counter affidavit filed, made his submissions that petitioners are bound to release the additional load within 180 days from the date of regularisation of Application by the consumer for enhancement of additional load; the supply of electricity in such cases shall be effected by the licensee within the timeline and in the case on hand, is extra high tension service connection and it has to be effected within 180 days. In case, the distributor fails to supply/release the additional load within the stipulated time of 180 days, it shall be deemed to have been released as per the order passed by the APERC in RP No. 9 of 2009. He submits that petitioners challenged the order passed by the appellate authority and also challenged the order passed by the CGRF without availing the appeal remedy. 5.1. According to learned Standing Counsel, petitioners in order to cover up their delay and negligence on their part raised the issue of CT and PTs. which is in fact their responsibility to arrange the meters and respondent is only responsible to make the required payments towards the cost of installation of CT & PTs. It is submitted, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Vidyut Ombudsman and therefore the above Writ Petition has to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned Standing Counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is to be seen, the contention of petitioners is that CTs and PTs with suitable capacity and accuracy are to be provided by Respondent - Railways. Though the said contention was rebutted by the learned Standing Counsel for Railways, the 1 st respondent - Railways have, in fact, given an undertaking which was recorded by the Vidyut Ombudsman at Para 23 of its order to the effect that they would replace the existing CTs and PTs with suitable capacity and accuracy and also would limit their R.M.D. within the limit of C.M.D. for safe operation of the grid. This undertaking given by the Respondent-Railways would show that it was their duty to procure and install suitable CTs and P'Ts of required capacity for meter accuracy. This undertaking given by the Respondent-Railways would show that it was their duty to procure and install suitable CTs and P'Ts of required capacity for meter accuracy. As this aspect has been overlooked by the Vidyut Ombudsman and also the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by both the Authorities are liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, order dated 28.12.2023 in Appeal No. 41 of 2023-24 on the file of the 3rd respondent and order dated 18.10.2023 in C.G.No. 123/2023-24/Yadadri Circle on the file of the 2 nd respondent are set aside. The matter is remanded to Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum-I (Rural), Hyderabad to consider the contentions of both the parties afresh, taking into consideration the plea of petitioners with regard to obligation/duty of Respondent-Railway Department to provide suitable CTs and PTs of required capacity and accuracy and thereafter consider whether any delay has occurred on the part of petitioners, as per the time frame prescribed by Electricity Regulatory Commission vide Regulation No. 5 of 2016, in providing additional load to the Respondent-Railway Department. 8. Writ Petition No. 5533 is accordingly, allowed. No costs. 9. For the reasons alike, Writ Petitions No. 5727, 7729 and 12509 of 2024 are also allowed, setting aside the impugned orders. No costs. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.