M/s. Sms Life Sciences India Ltd. , Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO 23314 0F 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

l'lls^{slvs LifeSciencesrndia. Ltd.} , having its Regidered office at prot No 19lll, Manikanta Towers, Road No. 7i, LrOii"e Uiif.]fiiaLrabad _ S00 096 Reo by its Executive Director Mr. T V. prave",l il'i;';i ii.-iror.iiiJiU"ii5i Sy No. 180/2, tndusrriat E.state, Kh.azjp_alii (V} j;;;ir., fHalls""sr".udal; Distrrct, H f Service Connection No SGRSS6

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1_ I he Soulhern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. , Rep. by its and Managing Direcror, Utrit CompounA,?VOuiaorir ijr"dr;;

¶12

Slli[-r^

¶13

2 The Suoerintendino Fnoineer, O_peration Circle, The Southern power Distribution compariv or r"etanganJ[td.,'5."gIii"dv, bangareddy Disrricr.

¶14

3 The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, The Southern power Distribution Company of Telangana fta, Sangai&'d; Sangareddy District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particurarry in the nature of a writ of mandamus decraring the actions of the respondent no 1 in threatening to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of rndia, Viorative of principres of naturar justice and without iurisdiction_

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition uMer Section 151 CPC praying that in tre circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Oourt may be^pleased to restrain the Respondents from disconnecting the e ectricity supply of the Petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in tre circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High⁽ )ourt may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to threaten the petitioner^,a'ith disconnection of the power supply over non- payment of electi-icity du<:r; '"vithout follor.ving the procedure envisaged under sec 56(1) and 56(2) of the el:ctricity Act.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HOIII'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGFSH BHEEMAPAKA

¶24

trRIT PE;TITION No.23314 OF 2025

¶25

ORDER:.

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in threatening to disconnect the power supply of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and contrar5r to the procedure envisaged under Sections 56(1) and 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2O03.

¶27

Heard Sri M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Stalding Counsel for TSPDCL representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Perused the record.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacture of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), situated in Sy.No.180/2, Kazipally Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy. It is stated that the petitioner obtained High Tension Service Connection bearing No.SGR-586 from the lst respondent Distribution Company under the provisions of The Electricity Act, 20O3 for the purpose of unintermpted power supply towards manufacturing activity. During the year 2O 15, due to increase in production, the

¶29

2

¶30

wc23314-2425

¶31

manufacturing unit of the petitioner's company was upgraded from 11 KV HT to 33 KV HT category connection. purslrrnt to the State Re-orgarrization Act, 20 12, separate transmission <;orporations and distribution companies came into operation in the State of Telangana and State of Andhra pradesh. petitio rer is an open access user having receiving power from priv rte generators situated outside the State of Telangana anci is also ciraq,ing power through Indian Energr Exchange (ItrX). This is ir addition to the drawal of power by the petitioner from the lst respondent under a statutory High Tension Agreement as stated supra For using this access, tJ:e petitioner is pa5ring cross subsid5. surl ! r; rrge tc Lhe I sr respondent apart from the wheeling charges whicl, are meant to wheei the power purchased by the petitioner frc m third party source through the distribution lines of l.t respondc nt. Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the Regulato 1. Commission to frx the retail electricity tariff to the various cons I mers of the 1st respondent. Further as per section 64(3) of the { ectriciry Act, 2OO3, the Distribution comparies have hled AF'Rs (Aggregate Revenue Requirement) and tariff proposals for thr: hnanciai year 2015-16. The lst respondent filed the said r\RR and tariff proposals belatedly on O7.O2.2OL5 though it has [tr be filed by 30.11.2014. Subsequently, the Telangana S._irtc Electricity Regulatory Commission proposed to levy the :ross subsidy

¶32

3

¶33

wP23314 ?025

¶34

surcharge in respect of 1lKV, 33KV and 132 KV voltage level open access consumer and pursuant to the said proposals, the Commission directed the 1"t respondent to issue public notice inviting objections/ suggestions from the interested persons/consumers, organizations, industries on the proposa,ls of the lst respondent. In response to it, the l"t respondent, along with Northern Power Distribution Company, issued a public notice in various newspapers on ll.O2.2Ol5 informing the consumers that proposals on cross subsidy surcharge for various categories of consumers have been filed by the l"t respondent and they are available in the website of 1"t respondent. Pursuant to the said notice, various consumers and organizations objected to the proposals submitted by the l"t respondent, but the lst respondent passed a common order in O.P.Nos.76 & 77 of 2O15, dated 27.O3.2OL5 determining the cross-subsidy surcharge in respect of various categories of open access consumers. However, in respect of 33 KV consumers, the cross subsidy was fixed @ Rs. 1.29 ps. Aggrieved by the same, the 33KV consumers, including the petitioner herein hled various Writ Petitions before this Court and this Court allowed the said writ Petitions. Against the said order of the Writ Petitions, the respondents preferred Writ Appeals and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeals against which Civil Appeals have been preferred before the Hon'ble

¶35

4

¶36

Apex Court and the Hontrle Supreme Court by its order dated O7.I1.2O23 made it clear to remit back the matter to the Commission to decide the issue of Cross Subsidy Surcharge after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned a rd directed the Commission to dispose of the matter within a period of 3 months. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supre me Court, the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission pass ed order dated L9.O4.2O24 in O.P.Nos.76 & 7T of 2O2S hxing thc cross subsidy surcharge @ Rs.3.O5. Challenging the same , tht; oetitioner Ilied W.P.19474 of 2024 and obtained an interim order. Thereafter, the henchmen of tire lst responcient entereci into the t.ompany of the petitioner and threatening for disconnection of pc u.er supply for non-payment of electricity dues. Hence, the petitio:ter approached this Court and f,rled the present Writ petition seeking a directicn to the respondent authorities not to disconnect the cl .ctricify supply of the petitioner company.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would subrrit that if at all the l"t respondent has to disconnect the power supply of the petitioner, it ought to have issued a minimum 15, days notice in writing under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and only after such notice, they can proceed to discontinue or cut the power supply. In the instant case, the respondent No.l hrrs not followed the maldatory procedure prescribed under the s,rrici Act and is

¶38

5

¶39

wP23314 2025

¶40

liable to be barred from taking recourse^{to disconnect the supply of} electricity to the petitioner's Compaly.

¶41

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for^SPDCL representing the respondents would submit that the^respondent authorities will act accordingly by duly following the^provisions established under Section 56 of the^{Electricit5rAct, 2OO3.}

¶42

In view of the said submission,^{without going into the merits} of the case, this Court is inclined^{to dispose of the Writ Petitionby} giving certain direction to the respondent authorities.

¶43

In the result, the Writ Petition is^{disposed of directing the} respondent Authorities to follow^{necessaryprocedureestablished} under Section 56 of the Electricity^{Act, 2OO3 and act accordingly as} per the said procedure. There shall be no order as^{to costs.}

¶44