A power distribution company challenged the Vidyut Ombudsman's decision setting aside a back billing notice and a notice clubbing LT service connections of a solvent storage consumer. The court found the back billing notice violated Clause 3.4.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3300 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 34180 OF 2024
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article bZA ot m. Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records and to quash the orders dated 30.08.2024 in Appeal No. 22 of 2024-25, as arbitrary, illegal unjust and contrary to the taw and facts of the case and to quash the same.
.r,'IANO:1OF 2024
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 stay the operation of the orders of the 2nd respondent in Appeal No. 22 of 2024-25 dated 30.08.2024.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TELANGANA TRANSCO)
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGF,SH BHEEMAPAKA qrRIT PETITION No.34 tao oF 2024
ORDER:-
i. This Writ Petition is hled seeking an order or direction in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the orders dated 30.Og.2024 in Appeal No.22 of 2024'25 passed by the !"a respondent, as iilegal and unjust.
2
!
works from November, 2020; Storage of tarks loaded and unloaded started from November 2027 and these r.anks were used for storage of solvents only. He also submitted -hat there is no manufacturing or production of any type of solverrts or materials. As the power supply is being used for the purpose cf storage of oils or solvents, the service has to be billed under LT-ll category as per Clause 1.4 of Tariff orders. Hence a back billing notice dated 31.10.2022 was issued to the 1"t respondent for a sum of Rs.5,20,796 for chalge of service connection fron LT-III to LT-II from 06.10.2O2O to 04.11.2022. On 17.11.2022, the Divisional Engineer, Operation, has issued a Final Assessment order dated 17 .11.2022 conlirming the Provisional Assessme-rt notice dated 31.10.2022. The l"t respondent has paid 5O% of the Provisional Assessment notice i.e., Rs.2,60,398 on 25.O1.2023 and has preferred an Appeal to the Superintending Engineer, operation, Medak (petitioner No.1) vide letter dated O5.O1.2O24 and the l"t petitioner has withdrawn the total back billing amount. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the back billing amount in ttre CC bills and surcharge, the lst respondent has approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for refund of differer: tial billing and additional charges. While the matter stood thus, again on O5.O7 .2024 , the service connection of the lst respondent was inspected by the 1st petitioner and during the course of his inspection, petitioner No. 1 found that there arr: three service
\ \
J
connections issued in the names of M/s.Vestro Solvents (p) Ltd., M/s.Vestro Containers (P) Ltd and M/s.Vestro Labs (p) Ltd and for all the three service connections, there is only one single entry to the premises. Subsequently, the Consumer Grievance Redrcssal Forum passed final orders dated 3O.OT .2024 dismissing the complaint of the lst respondent on merits and directed the 1 .r petitioner to follow the schedule of Retail supply tariff terms and conditions as per the Tariff order issued by the TSERC for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24 and to continue the service connection of respondent No. 1 under LT-ll category only. The consumer forum also held that the withdrawal of the back billing amount of Rs.5,20,7961- by the Superintending Engineer is incorrect. It further directed the petitioners to club both the LT service connections .into one single service connection as per Clause 3.5.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Pursuant to the said orders, the Assistant Divisional Engineer has issued notice dated 17.Oa.2O24 for clubbing two LT service connections of the l"t respondent into single service connection. Aggrieved by the orders of the Consumer Forum, the 1st respondent has filed an Appeal before the 2nd respondent vide Appeal No.22 of 2024-25 and the 2"d respondent passed orders dated 30.O8.2024 allowing the appeal by setting the initial provisional assessment notice dated 31.10.2022 and also the notice dated 17.08.2024 issued for clubbing the LT service connection. Aggrieved byle
orders oI the 2'd respo-u ". i '.r,epetitionersapproachedthis Court and t-rled the present Writ Petition.
\t.,
\
,l
5
wr341002024
towards back billing amount. Further, as per the hnal assessment order dated O5.O1.2O24, the petitioner No.1 came to a conclusion that the lst respondent utilized the power supply for preserving storage and automated filling of highly inflammable solvents for which the service comes under LT-CAT-III as per Tariff order Clause 1 . 10 and hence withdrawn the back billing case on SC.No. 10118OO378 and directed to continue the billing under LT_ III category. He also stated that the 50% back billing amount paid by the respondent No. t herein will get adjusted in the next month CC biII.
./
/
t)
Wp --34180-2024
\l
7
11 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. AHMED ABDULLAKHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// SEC FICER $I,,
I
TJ PVL
t_
HIGH COURT
DATED:0510812025
ORDER
WP.No.34180 of 2024
. ,,a'' '..
-)'r,
ri
I
$2 liEi',M
'-,]
*
t/-
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Vidyut Ombudsman's orders setting aside the back billing notice and service clubbing notice were lawful and should be upheld?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Medak Circle, TSSPDCL
The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Toopran, TSSPDCL
The Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Toopran, TSSPDCL
The Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE/HT-VI Bowenpally, TSSPDCL
The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Toopran, TSSPDCL
M/s. Vestro Solvents Pvt Ltd
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
