Disposed

Msr India Ltd. v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Tsspdcl) and 4 others

Telangana HC24 Jan 2023WP/2465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the levy of additional Advance Consumption Demand (ACD) by TSSPDCL. The Court observed that the statutory review period for the security deposit had lapsed as the approved load reduction occurred within the review window. Directing the respondents to review consumption and re-fix the ACD for the current period, the Court disposed of the petition

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to review the electricity consumption of the petitioner and re-fix the ACD amount based on the derated load in accordance with Regulation No.6 of 2004 for the current peri

Msr India Ltd. Vs Telangana State Southern Power… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:2465 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

MSR lndia Ltd, 4ZA, Chetlapotharam, chotkuri, Sangareddy, Telangana Rep. by its Whole Time Director, Ch. Durga Prasad S/o Rama Somayaji.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (TSSPDCL), Rep by Managing Director, Electricity Bhavan, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

Additional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Gummadidala.

¶13

The Superintending Engineer, TSSPDCL, Operation Circle. Sangareddy.

¶14

Chief General Manager (Commercial), TSSPDCL,Ground Floor, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶15

5- Sr. Accounts Officer Operation, Sangareddy.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to pass an order or direction or any other proceedings one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Lr. No.CGM (Comml)/ SE(Cy DE(C)/ ADE-1/ D.No. 3253/ 2O2O-21 dt.O5J2.202O issued by the 4th Respondent, and the proposed action of the 2nd Respondent in threatening to disconnect the HT Connection No.SRG-2457 of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Electricity Act 2003. (Security Deposit) Regulation, 2004, and to consequently set aside Lr.No.CGM (Comml)/ SE(C)/ DE(C)/ ADE-I/ D.No. 32531 2020-21 dt.05 12.2020 issued by the 4th Respondent.

¶18

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition Unoer Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition; the High Court may be^pleased to directed not to disconnect the HT Connection No.SRG-2457 of the^Petitioner.

¶20

f .A.NO:2 OF 2021

¶21

Between:

¶22

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.^(TSSPDCL), Rep by Managing Director, Electricity Bhavan, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶23

Addational Engineer, TSSPDCL, Gummadidila.

¶24

The Superintending Engineer. TSSPDCL, Operation Circle. Sangareddy.

¶25

Chief General Manager (Commercial), TSSPDCL,Ground Floor, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶26

Sr. Accounts Cfficer Operation, Sangareddy.

¶27

....PETIIONERS/RESPONDENTS'l to 4

¶28

AND

¶29

MSR lndia Lld.42lA Chetlapotharam, Ghotkuri, Sangareddy, Telangana Rep. by its Whole Time Director Ch. Durga Prasad S/o Rama Somayaji.

¶30

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶31

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 0310212021 in W.P. No 2465 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI.P.S.S.KAILASH NATH

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI.R.VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TS TRANSCO)

¶34

The Court made the following ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.2465 ot 2O2L

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Lr.No. CGM(Comml) / SE(C) / DE(C) /ADE-I/D. No. 3253/ 2O2O-21 dated O5.L2.202O issued by the 4trr respondent and the proposed action of the 2n0 respondent in threatening to disconnect the HT connection No.SRG-2457 of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrar5r to Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.

¶39

Brief facts leading to the frling of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing of copper related products and had applied for electricity connection under HT Cat-l and the same was granted on 09.08.2O18 for 1501 KVA CMD. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,01,000/- towards Security deposit charges at the time of sanction of the connection. It is submitted that pursuant to the review of the usage of the petitioner, the^petitioner was asked to^pay Advance Consumption^{Demand(ACD) amount} of^{Rs. 13,90,866/-} vide letter dated 16.O8.2019 and the^{petitionerhad complied with} the same. Further, the^petitioner had requested^{the respondents for} deration of load from the^{existingf501 KVA CMD to 75O KVA CMD}

¶40

PN{ D,J w.P.No:2465 of 2021

¶41

and the same^was approved and communicated^{to the petitionerby} the 3.d respondent vide memo dated 03.07.2020. Ot^{account of} such deration, the electricity charges of the^petitioner have^also come down. However, without considering the same, the^petitioner was asked to pay additional ACD amount of Rs.9,54,788/- on the ground that the consumption of enerry by the petitioner is high. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 07 .ll.2O2O seeking reconsideration or recalculation of ACD on the basis of deration of the load. However, since the respondents did not consider the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶42

This Court, vide orders <lated O3.O2.202 1, directed the official respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶43

Learned ccunsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the Writ Afiidavit.

¶44

Learned Slanding Counsel for the respondents have relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, wherein it is mentioned that the deration ol contracted load has been done only in the month of ,Iuly, 2O2O, whereas, the review of security deposit was made in the month of April 202O based on 2 months average of the preceding 1i2 months consumption as per Clause 6 of the Regulation No.6 of 2OO4 read with Clause 5.3.1 of the General

¶45

PMD,J W.P.No.2465 oI202l

¶46

I I

¶47

I I

¶48

Terms and Conditions of Suplly in terms of Section 47 otElectricity Act, 2003. It is submitted that the review has been done strictly in accordance with the Regulations of the Electricity Act, 20O3. It is also submitted that the deration of the consumption of the petitioner from 1501 KVA to 750 KVA w.e.f. July, 2O20 will be considered from the year 2O2O-21 and not for the year 2O19-20 as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the action of the respondents in reviewing and deciding the ACD on the basis of consumption of enerry by the petitioner in the previous 12 months is in accordance with larv.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since more than two years have passed, the respondents may be directed to review consumption and re-fix the ACD on the basis of the present consumption in accordance with Clause 6 of the Regulation No.6 of 2OO4 and in terms of Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003 arrd the proviso thereunder.

¶50

7 . Having regard to the rival contentions and the material of record, this Court finds that the review of the security deposit was for the period of 2O19-2O and it was in the year 2O2O, tlaat the petitioner had requested for deration of the load which has been accepted by the respondents. Admittedly, the securit5r deposit is only to ensure that the electricity charges are regularly paid by the

¶51

PMD.J W.P.No.2465 of 2021

¶52

¶53

¶54

consumers and in cases of failure to pay, the company can recover the same from the security deposit. Since, the relevant period for which review was done has already lapsed and the current period is 2022-23 and the petitioner has admittedly paid all the dues, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to review the consumption of electrici$r by the petitioner as per the derated load and re-fix the ACD amount in accordance with Regulation No.6 of 2OO4 and the proviso thereunder for the current period.

¶55

Accordinglv, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also staad

¶57

closed.

¶58

SD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REG]STRAR //rRUECOPY// ( t,

¶59

SECTTON OFFICER

¶60

To 1. The Managing Director, Telangana^State Southem^{Power Distribution Co.Ltd.} (TSSPDCL), Electricity Bhavan, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Additional Engineer, TSSPDCL,^Gummadidala. 3. The Superintending^{Engineer, TSSPDCL,Operation Circle. Sangareddy.} 4. The Chief General Manager^{(Commercial),} TSSPDCL,GToun{^Floor, Corporate Office, Mint Compound,^Hyderabad.

¶61

The Sr. Accounts Officer^{Operation, Sangareddy.} 6. One CC to SRI.P S.S.KAILASH^NATH, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY^(SC FOR TS TRANSCO) [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies

¶62

One spare cop r'

s.A. BS

BS(

l I l i

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410112023

ORDER

WP.No.2465 oI2O21

FE ST4 )4:
ot
9.
g zt ti:il ?:t:l
,Y
<br>

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶73

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶74

\o
Orb'
$<br>s?^

Msr India Ltd. v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Tsspdcl) and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Msr India Ltd. v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Tsspdcl) and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries Vs State of Telangana

Infosage Systems India Private Limited Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Animisha Muppidi Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam Vs Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy

Naveen Associates Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Raoof Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others