ORDER : 1. The notice issued by the 5th respondent for imposing Development Charges, dated 29.11.2024, in respect of Service Connection No.55316-01184, Category LT3-INDUSTRY of 55316-Bompally (Dist), is impugned in this Writ Petition. Petitioner challenges classification of the existing LT connection as HT connection. They seek a consequential direction to regularize the alleged additional connected load by paying Service Line Charges, Development Charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs.29,800/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only). 2. The brief case is that petitioner firm is a rice mill, obtained Service Connection No.55316-01184 in October 2021 under Category LT3 with an approved connected load of 99 LP. In 2022, due to an increase in work and operational requirements of the rice mill, they applied for enhancement of the connected load to 124.5 LP; enhanced load was sanctioned and was being utilized by petitioner till December 2024. Subsequently, due to changes in Government policy whereby the compulsory supply of rice was withdrawn, business of petitioner was severely affected. As a result, petitioner’s consumption load drastically reduced from 124 LP and as on the date of the affidavit, they were using only 64 LP consumption load for the purpose of carrying out job works. 2.1. While so, Respondent No.5 conducted an inspection on 29.11.2024 and thereafter issued the impugned letter observing that though the Contracted Load was below the approved 124.0 LP, the Connected Load as per inspection was found to be 144.5 HP and there was an excess connected load of 21.0 HP over the contracted load. On this basis, Respondent No.5 proceeded to convert LT service connection into HT connection and directed petitioner to regularize the additional connected load by depositing Rs.29,800/-. The impugned notice further called upon petitioner to submit an explanation, failing which the service connection was proposed to be disconnected immediately after expiry of the notice period. Petitioner categorically asserts that they never applied for / obtained HT connection and have always been operating only under LT connection. 2.2. Petitioner states that they submitted representation on 28.02.2025 to Respondent No.5, pointing out that the connected load had been 124.0 LP for the past three years and that the alleged connected load of 145 HP was never used by them and requested to conduct re-inspection of the premises to ascertain the actual connected load of the petitioner firm. 2.2. Petitioner states that they submitted representation on 28.02.2025 to Respondent No.5, pointing out that the connected load had been 124.0 LP for the past three years and that the alleged connected load of 145 HP was never used by them and requested to conduct re-inspection of the premises to ascertain the actual connected load of the petitioner firm. It is also their case that reply dated 17.03.2025 was submitted stating that Respondent No.5 had ascertained the actual consumption load as only 84 LP and accepted the current bill dated 28.02.2025 after deducting the extra load and also confirmed the consumption load of petitioner firm as 84 LP. 2.3. Despite the above developments, it is stated, for March - April 2025, Respondent No.5 has not revoked the impugned notice and continued to erroneously charge electricity bills on HT unit basis and issued the impugned proceedings and consequential bills. It is further stated, even as on the date of filing the affidavit, minimum charges per unit are being levied on HT unit basis, which clearly indicates conversion of service connection from LT to HT category; such levy is unjustifiable and resulted in an exponential increase in monthly electricity bills. For March and April 2025, Rs.79,596/- and Rs.79,628/- respectively were levied. According to petitioner, Respondent No.5 has no material to justify levy of development charges in respect of the said service connection. In similar circumstances, this Court, while setting aside the impugned notice for Development Charges, disposed of Writ Petition No. 20457 of 2022, hence, contends that impugned notice dated 29.11.2024 issued by Respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside. 3. While issuing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 22.04.2025 directed Respondent No.5 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of petitioner dated 28.02.2025 strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and communicate a copy thereof to petitioner. 4. 3. While issuing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 22.04.2025 directed Respondent No.5 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of petitioner dated 28.02.2025 strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and communicate a copy thereof to petitioner. 4. A vacate stay Application was filed on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5 stating that on 08.05.2024, petitioner applied for a second electricity service in the name of Sri Samudrala Shyam Sunder; on 10.05.2024, after inspection of the service premises, the Application was rejected on the ground that the existing service connection bearing SC No.55316-01184 and the newly applied service were located within the same premises and consumer was advised that if a new service connection was required, a compound wall with separate entrances must be erected between the two services, however, consumer did not take any further steps pursuant to the said advice. While taking monthly meter readings, it was observed that the recorded Maximum Demand exceeded the contracted load, and the same was communicated to AAE/DPE/Peddapally who on 18.11.2024, inspected the service location and observed that consumer was running another industry from the same premises, despite the fact that earlier permission for a second service had been rejected. It is stated that the sanctioned load of Service Connection was 124 HP and the additional load utilized was calculated as 15.293 kW, being the difference 20.5 HP at the conversion rate of 1 HP equal to 0.746 kW. 4.1. Based on the inspection note, the impugned notice was issued to petitioner calling upon him to regularize the additional load and to pay Development Charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs.29,800/-, strictly in accordance with existing rules and by duly following the principles of natural justice. However, the consumer continued to utilize power in excess of the sanctioned load. On 05.12.2024, the recorded Maximum Demand was 112.7 kVA, which is equivalent to 151.07 HP, exceeding even 144.5 HP; such demand was recorded in the meter as well as in the Electricity Billing System records. However, the consumer continued to utilize power in excess of the sanctioned load. On 05.12.2024, the recorded Maximum Demand was 112.7 kVA, which is equivalent to 151.07 HP, exceeding even 144.5 HP; such demand was recorded in the meter as well as in the Electricity Billing System records. It is further stated, on 28.02.2025, the consumer submitted a representation to ADE/Operation/Peddapally requesting re-inspection and claiming that the load did not exceed 124 HP, while also seeking deration of load from 145 HP to 124 HP; pursuant thereto, inspection was conducted on 07.03.2025 and observed that consumer was utilizing electricity supply for a newly formed industry with an additional load of 66 HP through a change-over switch connected between the old industry and the new industry sheds, hence, they were advised to remove the excess load, but they failed to comply with the same.. 4.2. It is stated, on 17.03.2025, the consumer addressed a representation to SE/Operation/Peddapally requesting copies of the load inspection sheets prepared by AAE/DPE/Peddapally and ADE/Operation/Peddapally, stating that he was willing to make payment if the connected load exceeded 124 HP and requesting removal of additional load charges from March 2025 bill. However, as the connected load was not reduced, the bill was not altered. On 07.04.2025, a legal notice was got issued to SE/Operation/Peddapally, ADE/Operation/Peddapally and AAE/DPE/Peddapally seeking revision of the electricity bill based on sanctioned load of 124 HP instead of 144.5 HP and subsequently, filed this Writ Petition. 4.3. It is also stated, on 26.06.2025, ADE/Operation/Peddapally again inspected the service location in the presence of consumer and recorded their statement, during the said inspection, it was found that the total connected load of the old industry and the new industry together was 209 HP, equivalent to 155.914 kW, existing within the same premises. Consumer also admitted that he was running both industries as per his requirement by using a change-over switch. The consumer’s statement is stated to have been enclosed with the records. These respondents rely upon the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Order for FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29, specifically clause 9.12.8, which stipulates that the connected load shall not exceed the contracted load specified in the agreement and that fixed charges shall be computed based on the contracted load or actual recorded demand, whichever is higher. Though the contracted load prior to November 2024 was 124 HP, the connected load was much higher. Though the contracted load prior to November 2024 was 124 HP, the connected load was much higher. Clause 9.12.10(iv), which provides that where recorded demand of any LT-III service exceeds 75 kVA, or 93 kVA for rice mills, equivalent to 124.66 HP, such recorded demand shall be billed at HT-I (11 kV supply) demand charges with notice. Since the connected load during the inspection on 18.11.2024 was 144.5 HP, which exceeded 124 HP, billing was changed from LT-III to HT category. 4.4. Respondents further relying upon Clauses 5.3.2 and 12.3.3.2, contends that the impugned notice was issued strictly within the scope of these provisions and in accordance with the applicable electricity rules. Petitioner’s request for deration of load from 145 HP to 124 HP cannot be considered, as the connected load was found to be more than 124 HP, specifically 209 HP as on 26.06.2025. According to these respondents, the order in Writ Petition No.20457 of 2022 is not applicable to the present case, as in that matter action was taken without issuance of notice, whereas in the present case notice was issued strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 5. Petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that as per Clause 3.4.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, any reclassification of consumer category from LT to HT requires issuance of a prior show-cause notice, grant of 15 days’ time for objections, and passing of a reasoned order but no such procedure was followed. The impugned letter dated 29.11.2024 is only a demand notice and not a valid show-cause notice, rendering the action vitiated. Even in cases where additional connected load is detected in LT Category-III connections, Clause 12.3.3 mandates issuance of a notice of at least one month to enable regularization of such additional load. No such notice was issued in the present case. 5.1. With regard to the allegation of excess RMD of 112.7 kVA recorded on 05.12.2024, it is stated, the impugned demand dated 29.11.2024 pertains to a period when actual consumption was substantially below the contracted load. Between May and November 2024, the recorded maximum demand consistently remained below 100 kVA as per billing records; RMD of 112.7 kVA occurred only on 05.12.2024, subsequent to issuance of the impugned demand, and the December 2024 charges were duly regularized by payment. Between May and November 2024, the recorded maximum demand consistently remained below 100 kVA as per billing records; RMD of 112.7 kVA occurred only on 05.12.2024, subsequent to issuance of the impugned demand, and the December 2024 charges were duly regularized by payment. The EBS billing history from November 2024 to June 2025 shows only one exceed in December 2024, while for subsequent months the demand remained below 93 kVA, including January 2025 at 78.4 kVA, March 2025 at 73.3 kVA, and April 2025 at 50.0 kVA. Despite this, HT billing of approximately Rs.2,79,000 to Rs.2,81,000 per month continued, which is arbitrary. 5.2. According to petitioner, a change-over switch does not increase sanctioned load or result in unauthorized consumption; it only enables controlled and safe distribution of supply. Its existence does not establish simultaneous operation of two industries or excess load and this allegation does not find mention in the impugned demand notice under challenge. It is emphasized, petitioner consistently operated only one unit at a time, depending on operational requirements, and supply was never drawn simultaneously by both units. The purpose of the change-over switch is precisely to prevent concurrent usage. 5.3. It is argued, Clauses 9.12.8 and 9.12.10 apply only when recorded demand exceeds contracted load. The alleged figures relied upon are unsupported by metering data and are based on inflated assessments. Clause 9.12.10(d) authorizes billing of excess demand for a particular month at HT-I demand charges with notice, but does not authorize permanent conversion of an LT service to HT category without compliance with Clause 3.4.1 of the GTCS. Clause 9.12.8 contemplates fixation of charges based on contracted load or actual recorded demand, whichever is higher. The petitioner’s contracted load was 124 HP, and the recorded demand never exceeded this limit. The connected load assessment during inspection on 18.11.2024 is neither a recorded demand nor a sanctioned parameter under the service agreement, making its use for revising billing impermissible. 5.4. Clause 9.12.10(iv) applies only where recorded demand of an LT-III service exceeds 75 kVA, or 93 kVA in the case of rice mills. The respondents have failed to produce metering data demonstrating such exceed. Reliance on connected load derived from inspection does not satisfy the statutory requirement, as tariff provisions recognize only recorded demand through metering. The stand of respondents that deration of load from 145 HP to 124 HP is impermissible is denied. The respondents have failed to produce metering data demonstrating such exceed. Reliance on connected load derived from inspection does not satisfy the statutory requirement, as tariff provisions recognize only recorded demand through metering. The stand of respondents that deration of load from 145 HP to 124 HP is impermissible is denied. Under the TSERC Supply Code, a consumer has the right to seek deration of contracted load subject to technical feasibility, and the licensee is bound to consider such request. The connected load evaluation of 209 HP on 26.06.2025 is arbitrary, presumptive, and unsupported by recorded demand. It is finally stated, respondents failed to establish that recorded demand at any point exceeded the contracted load of 124 HP. The reliance on combined connected load of two independent units in the same premises is misleading, as connected load is not the governing criterion under Clause 9.12.10(iv); recorded demand alone is determinative. Petitioner therefore, submitted representation dated 08.05.2025 seeking deration or continuation under LT-III category based on sanctioned and recorded demand, but without considering the same, respondents issued demand notices dated 24.04.2025 for Rs.3,59,031/- and dated 22.08.2025 for Rs.4,42,608/-, requiring payment within seven days. The said action violates Sections 43 and 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandate supply strictly in accordance with agreed terms and adherence to the Supply Code notified by the Commission. 6. During the hearing, petitioner filed additional affidavit stating that inspection report is wholly fabricated and created, and they had never signed the said document nor received it at any point of time. It is further stated, respondents have relied upon certain photographs allegedly depicting petitioner’s premises and a change-over switch; while petitioner does not deny the existence of change-over switch or the machinery shown in the photographs, it is categorically stated that the said photographs neither establish nor indicate the existence of any excess connected load and mere presence of machinery or a change-over switch cannot be construed as proof of misuse or excess demand. 6.1. Petitioner states that the premises contain two sets of machinery separated by a boundary wall. Since the downsizing of operations, only the lower-capacity machinery is in operation. The change-over switch installed at the premises is a standard electrical installation intended exclusively for switching between the regular power supply line and a 45 HP backup generator during power outages. 6.1. Petitioner states that the premises contain two sets of machinery separated by a boundary wall. Since the downsizing of operations, only the lower-capacity machinery is in operation. The change-over switch installed at the premises is a standard electrical installation intended exclusively for switching between the regular power supply line and a 45 HP backup generator during power outages. It is also stated, respondents have not conducted any second inspection; such a contention has been raised only to justify the arbitrary and illegal disconnection of power supply; petitioner operates only a 60 HP rice mill and older machinery has been disconnected and kept in a locked adjoining room. Petitioner relies upon the recorded maximum demand (RMD) data for the last ten months, which consistently shows power consumption far below the contracted demand and never exceeding 50 kVA. If machinery of 200 HP or two rice mills were being operated as alleged, the RMD would have necessarily spiked, which never occurred. 6.2. It is further stated, during pendency of Writ Petition, respondents issued demand notices dated 18.07.2025 and 22.08.2025, and also affixed a notice on petitioner’s premises reiterating the same allegations already contained in the counter affidavit which is vindictive and high-handed on the part of respondents. Even assuming, without admitting, that there was any excess connected load, the applicable rules mandate passing of a reasoned order after following due process, which has not been complied with. Despite an interim order, no such order has been passed till date, and only repeated demand notices have been issued. 6.3. It is also stated, subsequent to issuance of demand notices, respondents disconnected petitioner’s electricity service connection in violation of the interim orders and in total disregard of judicial propriety. Due to which, petitioner is unable to continue the work, resulting in financial loss of Rs.50,000/- per day. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have made representations dated 27.09.2025 and 26.09.2025, but the same have not been acted upon. Petitioner categorically denies the contents of the letter issued by respondents dated 07.11.2025 along with the enclosed letter dated 17.10.2025. It is stated that the statements contained therein are false, fabricated, and have been issued solely to cure serious defects and contradictions in the counter affidavit already filed in the present writ petition. The explanations offered therein are alleged to be an afterthought and devoid of credibility. It is stated that the statements contained therein are false, fabricated, and have been issued solely to cure serious defects and contradictions in the counter affidavit already filed in the present writ petition. The explanations offered therein are alleged to be an afterthought and devoid of credibility. It is finally submitted that the said letters again refer to alleged communications dated 18.07.2025, 22.08.2025, 13.10.2025 and 17.10.2025, none of which were ever served upon petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Salvaji Raja Shekar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 8. The core issue involved in this Writ Petition is not merely the actual consumption at a given point of time but the existence of connected load and recorded demand in excess of the sanctioned and contracted load. The regulatory framework governing electricity supply clearly distinguishes between sanctioned load, connected load and recorded maximum demand. Clause 9.12.8 of the Tariff Order unequivocally mandates that connected load shall not exceed the contracted load, and that fixed charges shall be computed on the basis of contracted load or actual recorded demand, whichever is higher. Clause 9.12.10(iv) specifically provides for billing under HT-I category where the recorded demand of an LT-III service, including rice mills, exceeds the prescribed threshold. These provisions do not require a prior application by the consumer for conversion from LT to HT, but operate automatically upon breach of sanctioned limits, subject to issuance of notice. Clauses 5.3.2 and 12.3.3.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply empower the licensee to recover development charges and security deposit for additional load. 9. Petitioner’s contention that they never applied for HT connection and therefore, could not have been billed under HT category cannot be accepted in the teeth of the statutory tariff provisions, which empower the licensee to reclassify billing based on connected load and recorded demand. The record discloses that the impugned notice dated 29.11.2024 was issued, calling upon petitioner to regularize the excess load for which they submitted representations on 28.02.2025 and 17.03.2025, hence the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. During the inspection, it was found that sanctioned load of Service Connection was 124 HP and additional load utilized was calculated as 15.293 kW, being the difference 20.5 HP at the conversion rate of 1 HP equal to 0.746 kW. During the inspection, it was found that sanctioned load of Service Connection was 124 HP and additional load utilized was calculated as 15.293 kW, being the difference 20.5 HP at the conversion rate of 1 HP equal to 0.746 kW. Though petitioner was called upon to regularize the additional load and to pay Development Charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs.29,800/-, they continued to utilize power in excess of the sanctioned load. It is categorically stated in the counter, on 05.12.2024, the recorded Maximum Demand was 112.7 kVA, exceeding even 144.5 HP; such demand was recorded in the meter as well as in the Electricity Billing System records. It is also the case of respondents that on 28.02.2025, petitioner submitted representation requesting re-inspection claiming that the load did not exceed 124 HP and also seeking deration of load from 145 HP to 124 HP; pursuant thereto, inspection was conducted on 07.03.2025 and observed that consumer was utilizing electricity supply for a newly formed industry with an additional load of 66 HP through a change-over switch connected between old and new industry sheds, hence, they were advised to remove the excess load, but they failed to comply with the same. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill , (2012) 2 SCC 108 and contends that consumption of electricity in excess of sanctioned load constitutes ‘unauthorised use of electricity’ under Section 126. Explanation (b)(iv) of the Act. The Supreme Court clarified tht the term ‘unauthorised use’ is illustrative and not exhaustive and includes any usage in violation of contractual or statutory provisions. In view of the said judgment, petitioner’s conduct squarely falls within the ambit of Section 126 warranting assessment and levy of charges for excess load. 11. It is also to be seen, the reliance placed by petitioner on Writ Petition No.20457 of 2022 is misconceived, as, as rightly pointed out by respondents, in the said case, action was taken without issuing notice, whereas in the present case, notice dated 29.11.2024 was admittedly issued, followed by further inspections and correspondence. The factual matrix is thus distinguishable, and the said decision does not advance the petitioner’s case. 12. The factual matrix is thus distinguishable, and the said decision does not advance the petitioner’s case. 12. The allegations regarding fabrication of inspection report, non-service of notices, and mala fides are bald and unsupported by cogent material. On the contrary, respondents placed on record inspection notes, meter data, recorded maximum demand figures and regulatory provisions justifying their action. The petitioner’s own representations seeking deration and re-inspection, and the admitted existence of a change-over switch connecting different sheds, probabilise the respondents’ version that excess connected load existed at the premises. The argument that actual consumption was low does not negate the existence of connected load and recorded demand, which are the determinative factors under the Tariff Order. 13. The demand for Development Charges and Security Deposit of Rs.29,800/- is supported by Clauses 5.3.2 and 12.3.3.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, which empower the distribution licensee to collect such charges when additional or excess load is detected. The impugned notice dated 29.11.2024 cannot, therefore, be characterized as arbitrary or without authority of law. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that the action of the respondents in issuing the notice dated 29.11.2024, reclassifying billing from LT-III to HT category, and levying Development Charges and consequential bills is traceable to statutory tariff provisions and contractual terms governing electricity supply. No violation of constitutional or statutory rights of the petitioner is made out. 14. It is well-settled, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. This Court does not sit as an expert authority to re-evaluate technical findings recorded by statutory authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003. Unless petitioner establishes that the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to mandatory statutory provisions or vitiated by patent illegality or mala fides apparent on the face of the record, interference under Article 226 is not warranted. This Court is therefore, of the view that Writ Petition does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.