Rain Cements Limited, Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

W.P.Nos.26079, 14921, 18680, 20819, 24875, 26077, 26078 & 27170 of 1999; 453, 1676, 1842, 4304, 6312, 8343, 9529, 12256, 16354, 19336, 21611 & 21921 of 2000; 2074, 4143, 6755, 9180, 11575, 16726, 17237, 18926, 23243 & 25402 of 2001; 1025, 1033, 2227, 4550, 6296 & 8887 of 2002

¶4

W.P.No.26079 of 1999 & Batch

¶5

Between:

¶6

Pioneer Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., rep by General Manager P.Rajendra Naidu S/o P.Munireddy Regd. Office at Puttur 517583 , A.P R/o 28 , 2nd Cross Street , West CIT Nagar ,

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

Transmission Corporation of A P Ltd, rep by chairman Vidyut Soudha , Hyderabad

¶10

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle , Transmission Corporation of A.P Tirupathi

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.04.2026

¶13

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶15

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

Yes / No

¶17

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals?

¶18

Yes / No

¶19

Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶20

Yes / No

¶21

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

¶22

2

¶23

*** THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA**

¶24

PRASAD

¶25

+ W.P.Nos.26079, 14921, 18680, 20819, 24875, 26077, 26078 & 27170 of 1999; 453, 1676, 1842, 4304, 6312, 8343, 9529, 12256, 16354, 19336, 21611 & 21921 of 2000; 2074, 4143, 6755, 9180, 11575, 16726, 17237, 18926, 23243 & 25402 of 2001; 1025, 1033, 2227, 4550, 6296 & 8887 of 2002

¶26

% 17.04.2026

¶27

W.P.No.26079 of 1999 & Batch

¶28

Between:

¶29

Pioneer Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., rep by General Manager P.Rajendra Naidu S/o P.Munireddy Regd. Office at Puttur 517583 , A.P R/o 28 , 2nd Cross Street , West CIT Nagar ,

¶30

...Petitioner

¶31

AND

¶32

Transmission Corporation of A P Ltd, rep by chairman Vidyut Soudha , Hyderabad

¶33

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle , Transmission Corporation of A.P Tirupathi

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

! Counsel for : Sri K. Gopal Choudary Petitioner/s

¶36

^ Counsel for : Sri Sk. Md. Umar Abdullah, learned Counsel and Respondent/s Ms. Jyothi Ratna A, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

¶37

< Gist:

¶38

> Head Note:

¶39

? Cases referred:

¶40

Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1593 of 2001 dated 10.09.2024 titled as M/s Deccan Cements Limited V. Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited TS TRANSCO

¶41

3

¶42

Judgmentreserved on	24.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on	17.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on	23.04.2026

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH APHC010283791999 AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶47

W.P.Nos.26079, 14921, 18680, 20819, 24875, 26077, 26078 & 27170 of 1999; 453, 1676, 1842, 4304, 6312, 8343, 9529, 12256, 16354, 19336, 21611 & 21921 of 2000; 2074, 4143, 6755, 9180, 11575, 16726, 17237, 18926, 23243 & 25402 of 2001; 1025, 1033, 2227, 4550, 6296 & 8887 of 2002

¶48

W.P.No.26079 of 1999 & Batch

¶49

Between:

¶50

Pioneer Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., rep by General Manager P.Rajendra Naidu S/o P.Munireddy Regd. Office at Puttur 517583 , A.P R/o 28 , 2nd Cross Street , West CIT Nagar ,

¶51

...Petitioner

¶52

AND

¶53

Transmission Corporation of A P Ltd, rep by chairman Vidyut Soudha , Hyderabad

¶54

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle , Transmission Corporation of A.P Tirupathi

¶55

...Respondents

¶56

Counsel for the Petitioner: KATRAGADDA GOPAL CHOUDARY

¶57

Counsel for the Respondents: VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondents:V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶58

4

¶59

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶60

W.P.Nos.26079, 14921, 18680, 20819, 24875, 26077, 26078 & 27170 of 1999; 453, 1676, 1842, 4304, 6312, 8343, 9529, 12256, 16354, 19336, 21611 & 21921 of 2000; 2074, 4143, 6755, 9180, 11575, 16726, 17237, 18926, 23243 & 25402 of 2001; 1025, 1033, 2227, 4550, 6296 & 8887 of 2002

¶61

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶62

Heard Sri K. Gopal Choudary, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners appearing online in (W.P.No.26077, 26078, 26079 of 1999, 1842 of 2000) assisted by Sri Sk. Md. Umar Abdullah, learned Counsel and Ms. Jyothi Ratna A, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

¶63

The above batch of Writ Petitions are heard and disposed of together in view of the fact that they involve similar issues. Therefore, for the purpose of convenience, the facts mentioned in W.P.No.26079 of 1999 are referred to hereunder.

¶64

The prayer sought in the W.P.No.26079 of 1999 is as under:

¶65

“issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a mandamus or a declaration, declaring the condition in Clause 1 A and B of the General Conditions of HT Supply in the tariff notification B.P. Ms. 62 (Operation & Commercial) dated 28.12.1998 providing for clubbing of the contracted demands with the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh and all other sources like APGPCL Mini Hydel, Wind Power, MPPs, Co-generating Plants, etc. for the purposes of determining the voltage of supply and the voltage surcharge as bad in law, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and void; and

¶66

b) issue a appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a mandamus, forbearing the respondents from demanding or collecting any voltage surcharges from the petitioner company including the

¶67

5

¶68

disputed demands made in the respondent’s bill for November 1999 dated 26.11.1999; and

¶69

c) Pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper so that justice may be done.”

¶70

At the outset, it is to be stated that the issues in controversy involved in this batch of Writ Petitions are no more a res integra inasmuch as the said issues were settled by the Order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 30.03.2011 in O.P.No.2 to 5 of 2011 and Order of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1593 of 2001 dated 10.09.2024 titled as M/s Deccan Cements Limited V. Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited TS TRANSCO and that these two Orders have attained finality.

¶71

The facts involved in the present case, as emanating from W.P.No.26079 of 1999, are that the Writ Petitioner herein has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 17.10.1998 (MOU-I) for establishment of a group captive generating plant by name APGPCL; that it had a share equivalent to 500 KW out of the generating capacity of the said plant of APGPCL; that the HT Supply Agreement was executed for the Oil Division with Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 1400 KVA on 14.10.1990; that HT Supply Agreement for the Spinning Division of the Writ Petitioner’s company was executed on 25.02.1995 with Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 1495 KVA; that the Writ Petitioner has executed another Memorandum of Understanding on 19.04.1997 (MOU-II) for 172 MW expansion Stage-II, where, the Writ Petitioner had a share equivalent to 360 KW out of the generating capacity of Stage-II of the plant; that the Writ Petitioner had entered into Wheeling and Purchase Agreement for Mini Hydel Power Plant owned by the Writ Petitioner with capacity of 6.2 MW on 04.09.1998.

¶72

6

¶73

It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that Oil Division of the Writ Petitioner Company had entered into High Tension Supply Agreement with reduced CMD of 500 KVA on 14.11.1998; that however, on 24.05.1998, the Respondent No.1 has issued B.P.Ms.No.27, inter alia , prescribing the format for notices to be issued to consumers availing supply from APSEB and also all other sources if the consumers are to switch over to high voltage of supply by 31.12.1998; and that thereafter, Respondent No.1 has issued B.P.Ms.No.62 on 28.12.1998, thereby, notifying the revised tariff for the sale of electricity by the APSEB.

¶74

It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners simultaneously receive and consume electricity that is supplied from various sources including the source from the Official Respondents herein. The electricity supply from other sources is also wheeled by the Official Respondents upto the premises of the Writ Petitioners. The energy supplied by the Official Respondents and the energy from other sources are received by the Writ Petitioners for the purpose of consumption through a ‘single meter’ which records the actual maximum demand from all sources put together (RMD) during the billing month and also the actual energy delivered for consumption during the billing month. It is further submitted that for each billing month, the demands and energy attributable to the other sources are deducted from RMD/total recorded energy and the remaining demand and energy is billed by the Official Respondents herein as power supplied by it at the notified tariffs for sale by them to their consumers.

¶75

It is further submitted that with regard to the tariffs that existed under the previous arrangement, nearly from the year 1981, the Official Respondents herein have prescribed the voltage surcharge at which the supply was availed if it is less than the prescribed voltage.

¶76

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the rationale behind such provision that was in existence since 1981 was that, for the same

¶77

7

¶78

quantum of power, the losses are higher at lower voltages. Therfore, it was felt, that there should be a prescription for the voltage of supply depending on the quantum of power availed and there should be a measure of compensation for the higher losses if the power is availed at voltage less than the prescribed voltage.

¶79

It is also submitted that the Writ Petitioners were receiving their supply at 11 KV which was the prescribed voltage as their CMD that was less than 1500 KVA.

¶80

It is contended that under B.P.Ms.No.27 dated 24.05.1998, the Official Respondents herein have issued an Order that the consumers availing supply from APSEB and also other sources must avail supply at the specified voltage on the basis of the total power from all sources and that the consumers availing power at voltages less than specified voltage must switch over to the specified voltage on or before 31.12.1998. The said B.P.Ms.No.27 would also stipulate that notices in the format enclosed to the said notification would be issued to consumers availing supply at lower voltages. Despite the fact that none of the Writ Petitioners have received any such notices from the Official Respondents, the Official Respondents have issued Tariff Notification bearing B.P.Ms.No.62 dated 28.12.1998, wherein the prescribed voltage for availing supply was prescribed in Clause (1) A of the General Conditions for HT supply for total contracted demand not only with APSEB but also from all other sources. Clause (1) B prescribed the demand and energy charges applicable for cases wherein the voltage at which the supply was availed was less than the prescribed voltages under Clause (1) A.

¶81

It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that in the bill for November, 1999, the Respondents have charged voltage surcharge for billing month of November, 1999 without any notice or any explanation whatsoever. As stated earlier, the Writ Petitioners have sought explanation and in response to the request of the Writ Petitioners, the Official

¶82

8

¶83

Respondents have sent a further demand for the months of February, 1999 to October, 1999 also. In respect of some other Writ Petitioners, the bill for December, 1999 also included an amount towards voltage surcharge.

¶84

It is pertinent to mention herein that Clause (1) A of the General conditions of HT Supply, which is impugned herein, in the present Writ Petitions, provides for the voltage at which supply has to be availed for total Contracted Demand with APSEB from all other sources too. Clause (1) B, which is also impugned herein, provides for the rates of demand charges and energy charges where supply is availed at voltage less than that prescribed. Clause (1) A and Clause (1) B of B.P.Ms. No.62 (Operation and Commercial) dated 28.12.1998 titled as ( Sale of Electricity To Persons Other Than Licensees Revised Tariffs ). Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the Gazette Notification dated 28.12.1998 is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶85

“ GENERAL CONDITIONS OF H.T.SUPPLY

¶86

The foregoing tariffs are subject to the following conditions:-

¶87

(1) A. VOLTAGE OF SUPPLY :

¶88

The voltage at which supply has to be availed by EHT/HT consumer shall be as follows:

¶89

For Total Contracted Demand with A.P.S.E. Board and all other sources like A.P.G.P.C.L., Mini Hydel, Wind Power, MPPs, Co-Generating Plants etc.

¶90

Upto 1500 KVA 11000 Volts 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA 33000 Volts Above 5000 KVA 132000 Volts or 220000 Volts as may be decided by the Board.

¶91

B. VOLTAGE SURCHARGE

¶92

H.T. consumers who are now getting supply at voltage different from the declared voltages and who want to continue

¶93

9

¶94

taking supply at the same voltage will be charged as per the rates indicated below:

¶95

Sl.No	Contracted	Voltage at	Voltage at	R	ates
	Demand of an existing consumer (in KVA)	which Supply should be availed (in Kilo Volts)	which consumer is availing (in Kilo Volts)	Demand charge (Rs.per KVA/Mo nth)	Energy charges (Paise per KWh)
1.	70 to 1500	11	_6.6 or below _	190	390
2.	1501 to 5000	33	_11or below _	190	390
3.	Above 5000	132 or 220	66	190	390
			_33 below _	190	400

¶96

Note: The FCA will be charged extra as notified by Board from time to time.”

¶97

It is further submitted that on 15.06.1999, the HT Supply Agreement of the Spinning Division of the Writ Petitioner Company was reduced to CMD of 995 KVA; that the Respondent No.1 had issued undisputed bills for August1999 on 26.10.1999 and for October-1999 undisputed bill was issued on 26.10.1999; that on 26.11.1999, the Respondent No.1 has raised a bill showing specified voltage of 33 KV and including demand for differential voltage surcharge of Rs.2,58,058.51 Ps on 26.11.1999.

¶98

It is further submitted that having been aggrieved of the bill issued by the Respondent No.1 in the month of November-1999, the Writ Petitioner had addressed a Letter disputing the said bill and sought clear calculation and explanation for the billed amount on 09.12.1999; that despite the request of the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 had raised additional demand of Rs.41.45 lakhs for the period February-1999 to October-1999 apart from the demand raised through the bill of November-1999 vide Proceeding dated 17.12.1999.

¶99

Writ Petitions were filed challenging the new conditions set-out in Clause (1) A & B of the General Conditions of HT supply in B.P.Ms.No.62 dated 28.12.1998 providing for clubbing of the contracted demands with the APSEB and APTRANSCO and all other sources and also challenging the demands of the Official Respondents for voltage surcharges.

¶100

10

¶101

Similar demands were raised in respect of the other Writ Petitioners and therefore, various Writ Petitions were filed, which are included in the present batch of Writ Petitions along with W.P.No.26077 of 1999. It is further submitted that on 29.12.1999 an Interim Order was granted in favour of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.32933 of 1999 in W.P.No.26077 of 1999 on the condition that the Writ Petitioner deposits 1/4^th of the disputed surcharge.

¶102

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that the above mentioned conditions are grossly unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary because the terms of ‘contracted demand’ is relevant only with respect to the supply from APSEB and APTRANSCO but does not have any relevance in respect of the power received from all other sources. It is also contended that power sources such as mini hydel power are ‘inherently infirm’ and the consumption of electricity from such sources is always in substitution, but not at all in addition to the power from the APSEB and APTRANSCO. It is further submitted that power sources from mini hydel power is taken only when such power is actually available, and therefore, there cannot be any clubbing of power from such renewable sources of the power from APSEB and APTRANSCO.

¶103

Insofar as levy of voltage surcharge is concerned, it is contended by the Writ Petitioners that only the actual recorded demand during a billing month from all sources taken together than can reasonably be considered as relevant. It is further submitted that it is only when the recorded demand exceeds the limit of demand specified for supply at the prescribed voltage, the levy of voltage surcharge is justified.

¶104

It is pertinent to mention herein that Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) had examined the issue in the course of tariff proceedings for the years 2011-2012 and it had categorically held on 30.03.2011 that it is only the Recorded Maximum Demand or the Contracted

¶105

11

¶106

Maximum Demand, whichever is higher, shall be the basis for levying voltage surcharge. It is also submitted that this view of APERC was upheld and followed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in CMA No.1593 of 2001 dated 10.09.2024. It is further submitted that both these Orders have attained finality.

¶107

The Respondents have filed Counter-Affidavit in W.P.No.26077 of 1999 on 27.07.2000, thereby, justifying the demand raised by them. In any case, at the time of filing of Counter Affidavit, they did not have the benefit of the Order of APERC dated 30.03.2011 nor the Order of the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, inasmuch as the said Orders have originated subsequent to the filing of the Counter Affidavit. However, after having taken note of the subsequent Orders of the APERC dated 30.03.2011 and Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 10.09.2024, the Ld. Counsel would fairly admit that they have attained finality.

¶108

It is submitted that without appreciating the contentions of the Writ Petitioners, Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, vide Common Order dated 22.09.2008, was pleased to dismiss the W.P.No.26077 of 1999 including batch of the Writ Petitions. Having been aggrieved of the same, the Writ Petitioners have filed Review Petitions against the Common Order dated 22.09.2008 on 05.03.2009.

¶109

The Writ Appeals were filed by all the Writ Petitioners against the Common Order dated 22.09.2008 despite pendency of the Review Petitions. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, after having considered the matters on merit, was pleased to allow all the Writ Appeals by setting aside the impugned Common Order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 22.09.2008. The Hon’ble Division Bench had consequently dismissed the Review Petitions as having become infructuous in view of the Order of the Division Bench dated 23.06.2016 in the Writ Appeals remanding the Writ Petitions for consideration and disposal afresh.

¶110

12

¶111

On 30.03.2011, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, vide Common Order had disposed of the batch of Original Petitions bearing O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 of 2011, holding in Para No.134 as under:

¶112

“134. M/s Pioneer spinning and weaving mills Itd stated that there is a voltage surcharge levy based on "contracted demand with licensee and other sources". The Voltage surcharge is levied considering the aggregate of the contracted demand with the licensee and the average demand in respect of supply of other sources. They state that this does not consider whether the supply from such other source is in lieu of / substitution of some part of the energy contracted with licensee.

¶113

They illustrated this issue with an example.

¶114

A consumer has 1400 kVA as CMD with a DISCOM and 300 kVA as average demand contracted with say, a mini hydel plant. As hydel plants are seasonal, there are long periods when there is no supply from them and the entire recorded demand of say, 1300 kVA is met by DISCOM. However when there is hydel generation and 300 kVA is supplied by the hydel plant, the recorded demand is still 1300 kVA but 300 kVA came from hydel and 1000 kVA came from DISCOM. The recorded demand never exceeded 1500 kVA.

¶115

Yet in the present dispensation, the aggregate demand would be taken as 1400 KVA (CMD) + 300 KVA = 1700 kVA and it is construed that the consumer is required to take supply at higher voltage or has to pay Voltage surcharge. The actual power drawn is well below the 1500 KVA limit of Voltage supply.

¶116

They also stated that it is not in anyone's interest to supply at higher voltage when the actual power is only 1300 kVA. This was said to be causing lot of problems.

¶117

They requested that the existing provisions be suitably modified so that a recorded maximum demand alone is the basis for levy of voltage surcharge.

¶118

Replies of Licensees: Based on the contracted demands the required capacities of lines and power transformers are determined and installed accordingly. Surcharges will naturally be levied on contracted demands with licensee

¶119

13

¶120

and all other sources but not on utilization or recorded demand.

¶121

Commission's views : Reply of the DISCOMs is not meeting the situation described. The contracted maximum demand is never being exceeded here and so the line capacities and transformer capacities created with the contracted demand in mind are not being put under strain. As long as the consumer does not cross the maximum contracted demand, which the system has factored in already, the explanation of DISCOM does not hold. The provision is therefore modified as:

¶122

In case of consumers who are having supply arrangements from one or more than one source, the RMD or CMD only with the Licensee, whichever is higher shall be the basis for levying voltage surcharge.

¶123

Requests of railways for tariffs lower than Rs.4/- per unit”

¶124

(emphasis supplied)

¶125

In view of the remand Order passed by the Division Bench on 23.06.2016, in the batch of Writ Appeals, the Writ Petitions were restored to their original file, which are now being considered by this Court. As indicated earlier, that the issues raised in the present batch of Writ Petitions are no more res integra inasmuch as the issue that is decided by the APERC in O.P.Nos.2 to 5 of 2011 dated 30.03.2011 is in favour of the Writ Petitioners and also the Order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1593 of 2001 dated 10.09.2024.

¶126

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, had allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant therein by referring to the Common Order passed by the APERC dated 30.03.2011 in O.P.Nos.2 to 11 of 2011. The relevant portion Para Nos.11 to 17 of the Order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1593 of 2001 dated 10.09.2024, is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶127

14

¶128

“11. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission itself subsequently after the subsequent years for other establishments including the appellant's establishment has accepted the stand of the appellant vide their order dated 30.03.2011 in a batch of petitions, wherein the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission did not agree to the DISCOMS contentions. It had categorically held that in case of “consumers who are having supply arrangement from one or more than one sources, the RMD or CMD only with the licensee, whichever is higher shall be the basis for levying voltage surcharge". It was the view of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission itself that since the CMD is never being exceeded, therefore the transformers exceeds created with the contracted demand in mind are not being put to strain. It was also the view of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission that as long as the consumer does not cross the CMD which the system has factored in already, the contention of DISCOMS does not hold good. The view of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission was fortified and substantiated by way of an illustration given in its order which was accepted by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and which again for ready reference is reproduced herein under, viz.,

¶129

"A consumer has 1400 kVA as CMD with a DISCOM and 300 kVA as average demand contracted with say, a mini hydel plant. As hydel plants are seasonal, there are long period when there is no supply from them and the entire recorded demand of say, 1300 kVA is met by DISCOM. However when there is hydel generation and 300 kVA is supplied by the hydel plant, the recorded demand is still 1300 kVA but 300 kVA came from hydel and 1000 kVA came from DISCOM. The recorded demand never exceeded 1500 KVA.

¶130

Yet in the present dispensation, the aggregate demand would be taken as 1400 kVA (CMD) + 300 kVA = 700 kVA and it is construed that the consumer is required to take supply at higher voltage or has to pay Voltage surcharge. The actual power drawn

¶131

15

¶132

is well below the 1500 kVA limit of Voltage supply.

¶133

They also stated that is is not in anyone's interest to supply at higher voltage when the actual power is only 1300 kVA. This was said to be causing lot of problems.

¶134

They required that the existing provisions be suitably modified so that a recorded maximum demand alone is the basis for levy of voltage surcharge.”

¶135

12. It was this illustration which has been accepted by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory commission and on the basis of which the view of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory commission that the levy of voltage surcharge would be strictly in accordance with the CMD after due verification as to whether the limits under the CMD is ever being exceeded or not. If it is not being exceeded, there shall be no levying of voltage surcharge. This decision of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission on 30.03.2011 still holds good and is still being applied even on the appellant's establishment for the relevant period which is not challenged vide the present appeal where a different view was taken by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission vide the impugned order .

¶136

13. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that since the appellant had more than one sources of generation and the total voltage in addition to the electricity supplied by the TRANSCO, all added together exceeds the CMD of the appellant of 4995 kVA and the total kVA adding the electricity supplied by way of CMD and the electricity generated by way of wind energy and Mini Hydel power project comes to 9415.09 kVA. Hence, the appellant was not liable to incur levy of voltage surcharge as admittedly they were availing power supply of more than 5000 kVA.

¶137

14. We do not find any substance in the stand taken by TRANSCO, particularly when there is no dispute to the fact that the demand of electricity at the appellant's establishment is less than 4995 kVA. Even if the appellant is consuming the electricity generated from wind energy as also from the Hydel project, even then the appellant would only be requiring the balance of electricity from the

¶138

16

¶139

CMD which they have. Moreover, there is no material whatsoever produced either before the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission or before this court in the present appeal by TRANSCO to show that the appellant had ever crossed the CMD of 4995 kVA and that the balance of electricity was being that which was generated from wind energy and Hydel project.

¶140

15. From the aforesaid admitted factual matrix, what is culled out is that in the event the appellant is availing more than 4995 kVA, only in that situation would arise a question of additional transmission and transformer losses. However, once when the recorded consumption is less than 4995 kVA i.e. the CMD, then it cannot be said that there are any additional losses suffered. In the said circumstances the levy of voltage surcharge in the opinion of this Bench is irrational and arbitrary .

¶141

16. As has been earlier contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, we do not find force in their argument when they say that the energy generated by the appellant both under the wind energy as also from the Hydel power plant are fed into the grid of TRANSCO from the two locations where it is generated. Whereas, the appellant establishment is availing the supply made by TRANSCO at their cement plant itself. Thus, the clubbing of the demand from the various sources does not seem to be logical and justified.

¶142

17. For all the aforesaid reasons and also particularly the stand of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission itself for the subsequent periods gives a strength to the contention and arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and for the said reason, we are inclined to allow the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2001 in I.A.No.15 of 2000 in O.P.No.347 of 2000 by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and granting approval to the tariff revision made by the TRANSCO on 06.04.2000, both of which being bad in law and arbitrary. Further, it is categorically held that the appellant will not be liable to pay voltage surcharge as long as the consumption of power does not exceed the CMD with the TRANSCO .”

¶143

17

¶144

In Para-15 of the above extract of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, it has been categorically stated that the levy of voltage surcharge in the opinion of the Bench is irrational and arbitrary and therefore, the impugned Order therein is unsustainable. In the light of the above two Orders mentioned herein above namely the Common Order of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, dated 30.03.2011 and the Order of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in C.M.A.No.1593 of 2001 dated 10.09.2024, which is the latest one, it is held that the actual Recorded Maximum Demand (RMD) of all the sources taken altogether or the Contract Maximum Demand (CMD) with the APSEB/Licensee, whichever is higher, in a billing month shall be the basis of determining the voltage of supply and the application of voltage surcharge. It is also held that if the RMD or CMD, whichever is higher, does not exceed the specified limit of demand for the existing voltage of supply, they shall be no voltage surcharge applicable.

¶145

Accordingly, the present batch of Writ Petitions is allowed in terms of the directions as under:

¶146

i. The actual Recorded Demand of the Writ Petitioners with respect to all sources together for any billing month never exceeded 1500 KVA which is the specified limit for availing supply at 11 KV. Therefore, no voltage surcharge applies to the Writ Petitioners.

¶147

ii. Clause (1)B provides for the demand charges and energy charges to be applied in lieu of the normal rates only on the demand and energy supplied by the APSEB / APTRANSCO where voltage surcharge is applicable. There is no provision for applying any rate on the demand and energy availed on other sources. The levy of a notional differential amount

¶148

18

¶149

between the voltage surcharge rates in Clause (1)B and the normal tariff rates of APSEB on the demand and energy availed from other sources is without any basis or authority.

¶150

Consequently, the licensee may verify the factual position with respect to each of the Writ Petitioners and communicate the applicability or otherwise in the case of each Writ Petitioner individually and complete the entire process within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the Order of this Court. It is clarified that if the voltage Surcharge is not applicable to the Writ Petitioners, the amounts deposited/paid pending the present Writ Petitions shall be refunded by way of adjustment in the subsequent monthly CC bills of the Writ Petitioners. No Order as to Costs.

¶151

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶152

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

¶153

Dt:17.04.2026 MNR/JKS

¶154

19

¶155

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶156

W.P.Nos.26079, 14921, 18680, 20819, 24875, 26077, 26078 & 27170 of 1999; 453, 1676, 1842, 4304, 6312, 8343, 9529, 12256, 16354, 19336, 21611 & 21921 of 2000; 2074, 4143, 6755, 9180, 11575, 16726, 17237, 18926, 23243 & 25402 of 2001; 1025, 1033, 2227, 4550, 6296 & 8887 of 2002

¶157

Dt: 17.04.2026

¶158

MNR/JKS

Rain Cements Limited, v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rain Cements Limited, v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Bilal Ahmed, Son of late Somdani Basha Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nellore

C v Subba Reddy Vs Tirupati Urban Development Authority Rep by its

Dusa Sahitya Balaram Vs Shaik Babulal

Rain Cements Limited, Vs The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Financial Adviser and Chief Controller

M/s Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. Vs The Ap Transco Ltd. rep by its Managing Director,Central Zone

Rain Cements Limited, Vs The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Financial Adviser and Chief Controller