ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Divisional Engineer dated 31.07.2019, assessment notice dated 25.06.2019 issued by the 4 th respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) and the power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6 th respondent – Senior Accounts Officer in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM130 (KMM 1030), insofar as the said proceedings relate to changing the tariff category from HT-II to HT-VII and levying back-billing charges as arrears with retrospective effect, petitioner is before this Court. 2. Petitioner M/s Prathima Infrastructure Limited - a company engaged in infrastructure and allied activities is stated to have made an Application in September, 2017 to respondents for supply of electricity at High Tension with a Contracted Maximum Demand of 750 KVA at Voddu Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The said Application was made specifically for the purpose of establishment of a site office and factory, clearly mentioning details of machinery proposed to be installed and operated, namely machinery required for production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes. Petitioner asserts that the said activity constitutes manufacturing activity and does not fall under temporary or construction activity. Accordingly, the said Application was treated by respondents as falling under HT-II category, namely commercial and other services. 2.1. It is stated, after considering the Application and after due inspection of the site, sanction was accorded by the 2 nd respondent vide letter dated 28.10.2017. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent entered into an Agreement with petitioner on 30.04.2018 for supply of High Tension electricity under HT-II category, and a release order was also issued on the same date. From the date of release of supply, i.e. 30.04.2018, petitioner has been continuously and regularly paying power consumption bills raised by respondents strictly under HT-II category, without any default. 2.2. While the matter stood thus, the 4 th respondent issued assessment notice dated 25.06.2019 stating that inspection was conducted on 11.06.2019 in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM130 of petitioner; it was proposed to reclassify petitioner's service from HT-II to HT-VII category and to levy back-billing charges amounting to Rs.34,61,400/-. Petitioner was directed to pay the amount within 15 days if agreeable, failing which they were required to submit objections to the 3rd respondent within 15 days. 2.3. Petitioner was directed to pay the amount within 15 days if agreeable, failing which they were required to submit objections to the 3rd respondent within 15 days. 2.3. Immediately thereafter, petitioner is stated to have submitted the detailed representation dated 02.07.2019, categorically explaining that power supplied was being utilized only for production of concrete through a batching plant and for fabrication of MS pipes, which are manufacturing activities and do not fall under temporary supply or construction activity. Petitioner specifically denied that power supply was being used for construction purposes and sought a personal hearing in the matter. Accordingly, a personal hearing was afforded to petitioner on 10.07.2019 and their representative attended the said hearing. During the course of personal hearing, Respondents 2 and 3 suggested that petitioner may approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum-I (CGRF), NPDCL, Warangal. Acting on the said suggestion, petitioner submitted representation/complaint dated 12.07.2019 before the CGRF-1 which was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer (Operation), TSNPDCL, Kothagudem vide letter dated 18.07.2019. 2.4. It is stated, while the issue was pending consideration before the authorities, the 6 th respondent issued power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 for the month of July, 2019, a reading of which discloses that petitioner's tariff category was unilaterally changed from Category HT-II to Category HT-VII-A and that charges were levied under Category HT-VII-A. The said bill also included back-billing arrears to the tune of Rs.36,39,496/- It is further stated in the bill that amount was payable on or before 09.08.2019 and that the proposed date of disconnection was 24.08.2019. 2.5. Petitioner states that issuance of bill dated 26.07.2019, changing the tariff category and levying back-billing charges, clearly demonstrates that respondents had already decided to change category from HT-II to HT-VII even before final consideration of petitioner's objections and representations. According to petitioner, issuance of assessment notice by the 4 th respondent and personal hearing afforded by Respondents 2 and 3 were only empty formalities, rendering the entire process illusory and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 2.6. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.07.2019, informing that as per the tariff order for the year 2017-18, petitioner's power supply and tariff category would fall under HT-VII temporary supply and that arrears were assessed at Rs.34,61,400/-. Petitioner paid power consumption charges raised for July, 2019, under protest, excluding the back- billing arrears. 2.6. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.07.2019, informing that as per the tariff order for the year 2017-18, petitioner's power supply and tariff category would fall under HT-VII temporary supply and that arrears were assessed at Rs.34,61,400/-. Petitioner paid power consumption charges raised for July, 2019, under protest, excluding the back- billing arrears. Petitioner also states that Part VII of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with tariff matters. Section 61 deals with tariff regulations, Section 62 deals with determination of tariff and Section 64 with the procedure for tariff orders. Petitioner reiterates that its application for power supply was for production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes, which are manufacturing activities and that supply was rightly sanctioned and released under HT-II category on 30.04.2018. The agreement entered into on 30.04.2018 stipulates a minimum period of one year, and Condition No.2 of the Agreement, which deals with load and maximum demand, clearly provides that there shall not be any change in the contracted load or maximum demand without prior intimation to petitioner. 2.7. It is stated, even after expiry of minimum period of one year stipulated in the Agreement, respondents neither issued notice nor intimated petitioner regarding any proposed change of tariff category. However, by the impugned proceedings, respondents have unilaterally changed the tariff category with retrospective effect and raised a huge demand towards back-billing, without issuing any prior notice and without following due process of law, which action is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2.8. Petitioner further states that HT-VII category, as mentioned in the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission Retail Supply Tariff Order for the years 2017-18, relates to temporary supply, which is initially granted for six months and can be extended for another six months, and upon expiry of twelve months, the consumer is required to pay twice the regular tariff. In the present case, the Agreement itself stipulates a minimum period of one year, the supply has continued even after expiry of the said period, and petitioner has been regularly paying consumption charges under HT-II category. Therefore, classification of petitioner's service as temporary supply under HT-VII is wholly misconceived and untenable. 2.9. In the present case, the Agreement itself stipulates a minimum period of one year, the supply has continued even after expiry of the said period, and petitioner has been regularly paying consumption charges under HT-II category. Therefore, classification of petitioner's service as temporary supply under HT-VII is wholly misconceived and untenable. 2.9. It is asserted, till date, petitioner has been utilizing the service connection only for manufacturing purposes; construction work undertaken by petitioner is carried out by earthmoving and other allied machinery which run on diesel and do not require electric power. Production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes constitute manufacturing activity and fall within the definition of ‘industry’. Therefore, even assuming without admitting that change of category was warranted, such change could only be to HT-I (industrial category) and not to HT-VII temporary supply. 3. By order dated 20.08.2019, this Court granted interim suspension subject to petitioner paying one-third of the demand amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, it is stated, petitioner is essentially a construction company and Application dated 17.09.2017 itself was made seeking supply of High Tension electricity for the purpose of construction of Pumping Station No.2 of Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project, Package No.5, within the jurisdiction of TSNPDCL, Operation Circle, Bhadradri Kothagudem. Though connection for a load of 750 KVA was initially sanctioned under HT Category-II and released on 30.04.2018, the same was always subject to the prevailing tariff orders, general terms and conditions of supply and the directives issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission for the relevant financial years. 4.1. The respondents contend that as per the tariff directives of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission for the financial year 2018-19, a separate tariff category was introduced for consumers availing temporary supply under High Tension voltage. It is specifically asserted that petitioner had requested power supply for construction activity and not for any independent manufacturing or industrial activity unconnected with construction. It is stated, the Divisional Engineer/DPE, Bhadradri Kothagudem inspected HT Service Connection No. BKM130 on 07.06.2019 and during the said inspection it was noticed that the petitioner was utilizing the power supply for construction purposes, namely for construction of canal tunnel and allied works of Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project. It is stated, the Divisional Engineer/DPE, Bhadradri Kothagudem inspected HT Service Connection No. BKM130 on 07.06.2019 and during the said inspection it was noticed that the petitioner was utilizing the power supply for construction purposes, namely for construction of canal tunnel and allied works of Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project. On the basis of the inspection and the nature of usage, it was proposed to convert the category of supply from HT Category-II to HT Category-VII in accordance with the tariff order dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission for the financial year 2018-19. 4.2. It is stated, in terms of the said tariff order, billing was proposed under HT Category-VII instead of HT Category-II for the period from the date of release of supply i.e. 30.04.2018, till the date of inspection i.e. 07.06.2019. Accordingly, Rs.34,61,400/- was assessed towards differential charges vide proceedings dated 11.06.2019, which, according to respondents, is legally payable by petitioner. Assessment was made strictly in accordance with Clause 2.22 of the TSERC tariff order dated 27.03.2018 and in terms of Conditions 8 and 9 of the Agreement dated 30.04.2018. Under Condition No.8, consumer is bound to pay maximum demand charges, energy charges, surcharges, meter rents and other charges in accordance with the tariffs applicable from time to time and under Condition No.9, the company has the unilateral right to vary tariffs and general terms and conditions of supply according to exigencies. 4.3. It is asserted, the same procedure of reclassification and back-billing was uniformly adopted for all High Tension services engaged in construction activities throughout the State of Telangana, and petitioner has not been singled out. Rs.34,61,400/- was calculated based on the inspection and on the statement of the representative of petitioner who admitted during inspection that the power supply was being used for construction purposes. The category of service was proposed to be changed only after due inspection by the competent authorities and after issuance of provisional assessment notice dated 25.06.2019. The said notice covered the period from 30.04.2018 to 07.06.2019 and was issued after recording the statement of the representative of petitioner company who, according to respondents, admitted that the power supply was being used for construction activity also 4.4. It is stated, petitioner preferred objections and representations, and in compliance with the procedure prescribed, the matter was examined by the competent authorities. It is stated, petitioner preferred objections and representations, and in compliance with the procedure prescribed, the matter was examined by the competent authorities. Respondents assert that provisional assessment notice was confirmed and a final assessment order was passed on 10.08.2019, which was acknowledged by petitioner on 20.08.2019. Therefore, according to respondents, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 4.5. Respondents further state that petitioner is involved in construction activity and their contention that power supply was being utilized only for production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes is incorrect. It is contended that such activities were incidental to and integrally connected with the construction of irrigation project and were not independent manufacturing activities for resale. Hence, usage squarely falls under temporary supply for construction activity, attracting HT Category-VII, irrespective of the period mentioned in the agreement. 4.6. It is further contended that petitioner's assertion that construction activities were carried out using diesel generators is false. According to this respondent, the Application dated 17.09.2017 itself sought power supply for construction purposes, the agreement was executed on 30.04.2018 for construction of the pumping station, and the billing under HT Category-II from 30.04.2018 to 07.06.2019 was only due to an initial error, which was subsequently rectified upon inspection. 4.7. Respondents also contend that petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003. Sections 61 to 64 of the Act empower the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission to determine tariffs and classifications. Further, disputes relating to billing and categorization are required to be agitated before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter, before the Ombudsman. It is pointed out that petitioner had already approached the CGRF on 12.07.2019, and therefore, having invoked the statutory remedy, petitioner could not bypass the same and directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4.8. It is further contended that General Terms and Conditions of Supply, particularly Clause 3.4.1, expressly permit reclassification of consumer category with retrospective effect if the initial classification is found to be incorrect, after issuing notice and considering objections. Clause 12.3 authorizes back-billing in cases of misclassification or under- billing. Therefore, respondents submit that action taken is strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and contractual terms. 4.9. Respondent No.2 places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Electricity Supply Co. Clause 12.3 authorizes back-billing in cases of misclassification or under- billing. Therefore, respondents submit that action taken is strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and contractual terms. 4.9. Respondent No.2 places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill , (2012) 2 SCC 108 , to contend that where a consumer commits breach of terms of the Agreement and tariff regulations, the High Court should normally decline to interfere with a final assessment order passed by the competent authority in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This respondent concludes by asserting that Writ Petition is misconceived, not maintainable, and filed only as an afterthought to avoid payment of legitimately-assessed dues after acknowledging the final assessment order. It is contended that petitioner was correctly reclassified under HT Category-VII as per the TSERC tariff order dated 27.03.2018 applicable to construction activities, reclassification was uniform across the State, and that the impugned proceedings do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Petitioner filed a detailed reply specifically denying the contents of the Memo filed by respondents on 01.12.2025 and asserts that the statements made therein are untrue, false and misleading. In the said memo, respondents have taken a categorical stand that no separate statement was recorded during the inspection and that inspection report itself may be treated as containing the statement, with the signature of petitioner's representative affixed thereto. It is contended that this stand is wholly untenable and contrary to pleadings earlier taken by respondents in counter affidavits. 5.1. It is specifically pleaded that in the common reply in Writ Petition No. 33531 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019, petitioner had categorically denied the assertion of respondents that any statement of petitioner's employees was recorded during the inspection conducted on 07.06.2019. Petitioner reiterates that none of its employees or representatives had given any statement to the 2 nd respondent or to any inspecting authority on the said date. Petitioner further states that during the arguments, respondents attempted to contend that they had recorded a statement of an employee of petitioner admitting that power supply was being used for irrigation or construction purposes. Petitioner further states that during the arguments, respondents attempted to contend that they had recorded a statement of an employee of petitioner admitting that power supply was being used for irrigation or construction purposes. Petitioner states that it vehemently opposed such a contention and specifically prayed before this Court to direct the respondents to produce the alleged recorded statements of its employees. 5.2. At that stage, respondents filed memo dated 01.12.2025 stating that no separate statement was recorded and inspection report itself may be treated as containing the statement. Petitioner states that this admission on the part of respondents clearly falsifies their earlier pleadings wherein they asserted that statements of petitioner's representatives were recorded during inspection. Petitioner asserts that perusal of the inspection report dated 11.06.2019 would clearly show that it does not contain any statement of petitioner's employees or representatives. The report merely bears a signature acknowledging receipt of the report and does not record any admission or statement regarding the nature of usage of power. Petitioner contends that inspection report only contains a presumptive observation of the inspecting officer that power was being used for construction of an irrigation project, without any supporting material or proof. 5.3. Petitioner further states that in para 6 of counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019 and in para 8 of the counter in Writ Petition No. 33531 of 2024, respondents have specifically pleaded that statements of the representative of petitioner company were recorded during inspection. However, by filing the subsequent memo, respondents have now taken a contradictory stand that no separate statement was recorded. According to petitioner, this contradiction clearly demonstrates an attempt on the part of respondents to suppress true facts and to mislead this Court. Petitioner, therefore, contends that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against respondents for their failure to produce any recorded statements of petitioner's employees, despite asserting existence of such statements earlier. Inspection report, being based solely on presumptions and surmises of the inspecting engineer and unsupported by any contemporaneous record or admission, is unreliable and cannot form the basis for retrospective reclassification of tariff category or levy of back billing charges. 6. Heard Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for NPDCL. 7. 6. Heard Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for NPDCL. 7. The foundational facts relating to petitioner's Application for High Tension supply in September, 2017, sanction accorded by the competent authority, execution of the Agreement dated 30.04.2018, release of supply under HT-II category on 30.04.2018 and continuous billing under HT-II category till June, 2019 are not in dispute and stand admitted by respondents themselves. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether respondents were justified in unilaterally reclassifying petitioner's service connection from HT-II to HT-VII with retrospective effect from the date of release of supply and in levying back billing charges, on the premise that power supply was being utilized for temporary construction activity. 8. From the material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner's Application for supply of electricity, inspection conducted prior to sanction, and Agreement executed on 30.04.2018 contemplated usage of power for production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes. The said activities, on the face of the record, constitute manufacturing activity. The Agreement expressly stipulated a minimum period of one year and respondents themselves treated petitioner as falling under HT-II category for more than one year by continuously raising bills under the said category, which were duly paid by petitioner without demur. 9. Respondents' case rests on the inspection allegedly conducted on 07.06.2019 and inspection report dated 11.06.2019. However, a careful scrutiny of the said report shows that it does not record any contemporaneous statement or admission of petitioner or its representative admitting that power supply was being used exclusively or predominantly for construction purposes. Significantly, respondents themselves have taken a contradictory stand by initially pleading that statements of petitioner's representatives were recorded during inspection and later filing a memo stating that no separate statement was recorded. This inconsistency materially erodes the credibility and evidentiary value of inspection report. 10. While the tariff orders of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply do permit reclassification where the original classification is found to be incorrect, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily. Reclassification, particularly with retrospective financial consequences, must be founded on clear, cogent and reliable material and must strictly conform to the principles of natural justice. Reclassification, particularly with retrospective financial consequences, must be founded on clear, cogent and reliable material and must strictly conform to the principles of natural justice. In the present case, issuance of power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019, changing the tariff category and levying substantial back-billing arrears, even before final consideration of petitioner's objections, unmistakably indicates a predetermined approach. 11. This Court is unable to accept the contention that merely because the manufacturing activity is carried on at a site connected with an infrastructure project, the supply automatically assumes the character of temporary construction supply under HT-VII. The nature of the activity for which power is sanctioned and actually utilized is the determinative factor. Production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes are industrial and manufacturing activities, even if such products are used captively for an infrastructure project. 12. It is also an admitted position that even after expiry of one year from the date of Agreement, respondents neither treated the supply as temporary nor imposed any tariff applicable to HT-VII, but continued billing under HT-II category. This conduct of respondents is wholly inconsistent with the concept of temporary supply contemplated under HT-VII and further fortifies the petitioner's case. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned reclassification of petitioner's service connection from HT-II to HT-VII and the consequential levy of back-billing charges are not supported by reliable material, suffer from arbitrariness, and are vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned action also runs contrary to the consistent conduct of the respondents over a substantial period. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 31.07.2019, assessment notice dated 25.06.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6 th respondent, insofar as they relate to reclassification of petitioner's service from HT-II to HT-VII and levy of back-billing charges, are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings, assessment notice and bill are set aside to the extent indicated above. Respondents are directed to continue to treat petitioner's service connection under HT-II category and to collect future consumption charges accordingly.No costs. 15. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.