Allowed

The chief General Manager v. M/s. Ankit Packaging limited

Telangana HC21 Nov 2025WP/36841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by TSSPDCL challenging the Vidyut Ombudsman's award. The Court held that the Ombudsman exceeded jurisdiction by directing the licensee not to levy further surcharge, failing to apply relevant tariff orders and Electricity Supply Code regulations.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the Award of the 2nd Respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) dated 03.10.2023 in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24.

The chief General Manager Vs M/s. Ankit Packaging… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

.^{, .trr}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I.IYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND IWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 36841 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

The chief^{General Manager, Commercial Corporateoffice, Telangana State} Southern^{Power DistributionCompany Limited (TSSPDCL),Hyderabad.}

¶11

The chief^{General Manager, Revenue Corporate office,Telangana State} Southern^{Power DistributionCompany Limited (TSSPDCL), Hyderabad.}

¶12

The Superintending^{Engineer Operation,Sangareddy circle, Telangana State} Southern^{Power DistributionCompany Limited,Sangareddy District.}

¶13

The Senior^{Accounts Officer, Operation, Sangareddy circle, Telangana State} Southern^{Power DistributionCompany Limited,Sangareddy District.}

¶14

The Divisional^{Engineer, Operation, Patancheru, TelanganaState Southern} Power^{Distributiort Company Limited (TSSPDCL), SangareddyDistrict.}

¶15

The^{Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Patancheru, Telangana State} Southern^{PowerDistribution CompanyLimited(TSSPDCL),Sangareddy} District.

¶16

The Accounts^{officer, Revenue Sangareddy circle, Telangana State Southern} ' Power Diskibution^{Company Limited, Sangareddy District.}

¶17

..PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

M/s. Ankit^{Packaginglimited, rep by Sri. Ankit Aganual,S/o.ManoharLal} Agarwal^{Aganral Estate, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.}

¶20

Vidyut^{Ombudsmanfor the State of Telangana, First Floor 33/11KV} Substation,^{besides Hyderabad Boat Club, Lumbini Park,Hyderabad - 500} 063.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition^{under Article 226} of the^{Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue^a writ, order orrdirection more.particularly^{one in the nature of writ} of certiorari^{by calling for the records and to quash the orders dated 23.10.2023in}

¶23

Appeal Nc,. 28 of 2923-24 as arbitrary, illegal unjust and contrary to^{the law and} facts of thr: case and to quash the same.

¶24

lA NO: 2 CrF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidarrit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^pleasedto suspend the operation the orders of the 2nd respondent dated^23.10.2023in Appeal No, 28 o'f 2023-24

¶26

Counsel frrr the Petitioner: SRI N: SREEDHAR REDDY^(SC FOR TGSPDCL) Counsel f,rr the Respondent No 1: MS NISHTHA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No 2: -----

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A

¶31

PETITIOI[

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is Iiled aggrieved by the order passed by the 2*d respondent - Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, dated 23.10.2023.

¶34

The case of petitioners - TGSPDCL is that the lst respondent is a HT Consumer uide HT SC No. MDK 558 (SGR 558); power supply was released on 28.01.1993 and it was disconnected on 3O.12.2OO9 due to non-payment of Current Consumption Charges. Subsequently, the lst respondent sought restoration of power supply under Sick Industries Revival Scheme. In that regard, petitioners and the l"t respondent e.ntered into a separate HT Agreement on 1O.05.2O1O and power supply was restored on 11.O5.201O under the provisions of Sick Industries Revival Scheme. As the 1.t respondent has once again defaulted in payment of C.C. Charges, power supply was disconnected by petitioners on 09.08.201O. In spite of several notices, dues amounting to Rs. 12,30,603 f - were not paid by the 1"t respondent. Therefore, as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS in short), the HT Agreement of the lst respondent was terminated on 10.05 .2012

¶35

¶36

¶37

ie. after completion of minimum guaranteed period of two years

¶38

from thr: date of HT Agreement dated 10.05.2010.

¶39

2.1. Thereafter, petitioners initiated steps for recovery of amountr; from the lst respondent under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) A,:t, 1984 and APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 and issued Notice in Form A' dated 21.08.2018 for recovery of Rs. 9,1:;,530/- after adjusting the available security deposit of Rs. 3,25,2541-. As there was no response from the lst respondent, Notice in Form B' was issued on 31.08.2019 for paymen: of Rs. 21,36,882/ which includes surcharge from the date of termination of agreement of the 1.t respondent. Petitionr:rs have also addressed letter to the District Collector for recovery of electricity arrears under the provisions of Revenue Recover.r Act, by attaching and sale of immovable property belonging to the 1"t respondent.

¶40

2.2. At that stage, the lst respondent made represerLtations dated 19.O5.2O21 and 20.O5.2O21 for restoration of power supply and waiver of surcharge. As petitione:rs do not have power to waive surcharge, a letter was addresst:d to the lst respondent dated 15.12.2021 to pay Rs. 21,,36,8821-. The 1st respondent then approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) by filing a \rplaint utd-e No. cG/664/22-2s/sangareddy circle, to set. ,

¶41

¶42

¶43

aside the notice issued under Revenue Recovery Act for an amount of Rs. 21,36,88t21 and,to waive penal charges including surcharge from the date of disconnection of power supply and also for refund of the securit5r deposit amount of Rs. 3,25,254 /-. The CGRF rejected the complaint of the l"t respondent by Award dated 1O.O8.2023.

¶44

2.3. Aggrieved by the said rejection order of CGRF, the lst respondent filed Appeal before the 2"d Respondent fVidyut Ombudsman) in Appeal No. 2812023-24. The said Appeal was partly allowed by Award dated 03.10;2023, directing petitioners to collect Rs. 21,36,8821- as mentioned in notice issued in Form ts without lelying any further surcharge. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶45

Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy submits that for every delayed payment by the consumer, surcharge is imposed as per the orders issued by Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission ('the Commission) and the 2d Respondent can only follow the said provisions of law and pass orders, whereas in the case on hand, the 2.d Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and directed petitioners not to levy any further surcharge beyond the notice issued in Form B' dated 31.08.2019. Therefore, the Award of the 2nd Respondent is beyond its jurisdiction. He further contends that

¶46

¶47

as the impugned Award passed by the 2nd Respondent is without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside to the extent of directing petitioners to collect only Rs. 2L,36,882/- as mentioned in the Notice issued in Form 'B'without levying any surcharge.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel for the lst respondent Ms. Nisrhta argued that as per the directions of the 2nd Responclent in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, the lst respondent paid the entire amount of Rs. 21,36,8821- along with additional amount of Rs. 2,OO,OOO/- towards delay uid"e DD No. 323228 dated l;3.O9.2O24 and DD No. 323242 dated 25.09.2024 and the same were received by petitioners. It is further contended that surcharge on the delayed payment can be collected only frcjm thr: date of termination of agreement and not beyond the same. It is further contended that statutory period of two years shall be reckoned from the date of the first agreement i.e. from 28.or.1!193 and not from 10.o5.2o10, therefore, petitioners ought to have terminated the agreement as on the date of disconnr:ction i.e. 09.08.2oLo. Petitioners were not entitled to levy surcharge beyond the date of disconnection for nonpayment of c.c. charges and termination of agreement ought to have taken place on 09.o8.2o]o as per clause s.g.4.3 of GTCS a'nd not on 10.05.2or2 which is done in the case on hand. It is

¶49

¶50

¶51

further contended that in any event, the entire amount as directed by the lna Respondent along with additional amount of Rs. 2,OO,OOO|- was paid by the lst respondent by way of Demand Drafts and the same were acknowledged by petitioners. The 2"d Respondent has therefore, rightly allowed the Appeal filed by the lst respondent in part and there is no illegality or irregularity in the Award. There are no merits in the Writ Petition, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed, contends learned counsel.

¶52

In reply, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners contends that the Commission (TGERC) has framed electricity Supply Code uide Regulation 5 of 2OO4, as per which the licencee is entitled to collect additional charges for delayed p4yment of bills by imposing surcharge. It was stated that every consumer is liable to pay the delayed payment surcharge on the bill amount as per the Retail Tariff Orders issued by the ERC from time to time following are the rates extracted here below. "Delayed, Paument Surcharoe IDPSI

¶53

LT CATBrcRY

¶54

a. In case of LT-I (A), LT-I (B), LT II (A), LT II (D), LT IV and LT V(B), if payment is made after due date, the consumers are liable to pay, Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) per month on the bill amount at the rates given in the table below.

¶55

..:.:.'r+, ' '. ,:li : '-: r::rr.Jia, rt::fiiitr;: '::, i :.' -:ii':i: .' i: . '::

¶56

¶57

i: t_ g T IIII

¶58

LT I (A) Rs. 1O Per month LT r(B), LT rr(A), LT II(D), LT IV &^{LT V(B)} Rs. 25 per month

¶59

b. [n case of LT II (B), LT II^(C), LT III,^{LT VI and LT VII} and LT IX, the Licensee shall levy Delayed^{Payment Surcharge} (DPS) on the bill amount at the rate of 5^{paise/Rs.100/day} calculat:d from the due date mentioned on^{the bill, upto the} date of payment of Rs. 15O whichever^{is higher.In case of grant} of installments, the Licensee shall^{levy interestat the rate of} L8o/o per annum on the outstanding amounts^compounded annuall'1 and the two (DPS and interest)^{shall not be levied at} the same time.

¶60

HT CAIDGIORT

¶61

The Licensee shall charge the Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) per month on the bill amount at^{the rate} of⁵ paise/Rs. 100/day or Rs.550 whichever is higher. In case of grant of instalments, the Licensee shall levy interest at the rate of l8o/o per annum on the outstanding amounts, compounded annually and the two charges shall not be levied at the^same time".

¶62

5.1. As the Service Connection of the l"t respondent is under FiT Category, the Licensee is entitled for Delayed Payment Surcharge on the bill amount at the rate of 5 paise/Rs.10O/day or Rs.55O whichever is higher. Further, in case of grant of installrr:ents, the Licensee is entitled to levy interest @ l8o/o p.a. Wr^{the ,rutstanding} amounts, compounded annually.^{Since the}

2nd Respondent did not consider these aspects, it has exceeded its jurisdiction and allowed the Appeal filed by the 1st respondent in part directing petitioners not to levy any further surcharge beyond the notice issued in 'B' dated 31.08.2019. The Vidyuth Ombudsman is entitled to pass Award strictly in accordance with the Electricity Act 2O03, Regulations framed by the Regulatory Commission from time to time or following any^judgment of the Constitutional Courts. Viewing from any angle, the Award of the 2"d Respondent is not supported by any provision of law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶68

This Court, having considered the rival submissions and on perusing the Regulations framed by Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission, and the tariff orders of the ERC, wherein the Licensee is entitled to levy Delayed Payment Surcharge, holds that the 2"d Respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) has exceeded its^jurisdiction in holding that petitioners were not entitled to levy any further surcharge beyond the date of Form 'B'Notice dated 31.O8.2OL'9.^{The 2na} Respondent has not referred to or relied on any provision of law for coming to such conclusion. Therefore the Award^passed by the 2nd Respondent Vidyuth Ombudsman is beyond^its jurisdiction,hencethesameisherebysetaside.>

,';

i l, Ii

The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶73

Consequentiy, Miscellaneous Applications, if any

¶74

shall stzrnd closed.

¶75

SD/. M. NAGAMANI S T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

N OFFICER

To,

Sri. Ankit Aganrual, S/o.Manohar Lal Agarwal Aganrual Estate,M/s. Ankit Pac<aging limited, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.

¶80

Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana, First Floor 33/11 KV Substation, besides Hyderabad Boat Club, Lumbini Park, Hyderabad - 500 063

¶81

One CC to SRt N. SREEDHAR REDDY, (SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶82

One CC to SRl. NISHTHA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶83

Two CD Copies

DAN

1 ,rr BM

t a

HIGH COURT

DATEtt:2111112A25

ORDEIR

WP.No.36841 of 2024

THE S
o
1 g UAR 2026

ALLOVVING THE WRIT PETITION WITHCTUT COSTS

¶93

@ eop,vJ
F
ili,
y6
ltv A1*<br>

The chief General Manager v. M/s. Ankit Packaging limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The chief General Manager v. M/s. Ankit Packaging limited

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 Kraft Alloy Private Limited Vs Union of India

Smt. Jarapala Aliveli Mangamma Bai Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Kraft Alloy Private Limited Vs Union of India

Smt.G.Navya Vs Smt. Sikta Patnaik

K. Srinivasa Reddy Vs S. Harish

Madagani Sathaiah Vs The State of Telangana