M/s. Gtn Engineering (India) Limited Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

M/s. Gtn Engineering (India) Limited Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the recorded submission that the cause of action no longer survives; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending in the writ petition ordered to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 13(b) of the Proceedings TSERC/Secy/159/2015 dated 18.08.2015 of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, in so far as it stipulates the availment of Open Access Power round the clock (RTC), is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, discriminatory, unauthorised and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Taking on record the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication any more, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The legality or constitutionality of Clause 13(b) was not adjudicated.

Key takeaways

There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶41
As a sequitur, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition were directed to stand closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 37819 of 2015 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Special Original Jurisdiction; Surepalli Nanda, J.; decided 03.02.2025) - M/s. GTN Engineering (India) Limited (service connection bearing No. MDK937, in the name of M/s Perfect Knitters Limited) had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring Clause 13(b) of the Proceedings TSERC/Secy/159/2015 dated 18.08.2015 of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (6th respondent), in so far as it stipulates the availment of Open Access Power round the clock (RTC), as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, discriminatory, unauthorised and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. An interim application (WPMP No. 48648 of 2015) under Section 151 CPC had sought suspension of Clause 13(b) pending disposal. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the cause of action in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication any more. Taking that submission on record, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and directed that miscellaneous applications pending in the writ petition stand closed. No view whatsoever was expressed by the Court on the merits, legality or constitutionality of Clause 13(b); the substantive question remains open and the judgment carries no precedential value on open access conditions.

t32s2l

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

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 37819 OF 2015

Between:

M/s. GTN Engineering (lndia) Limited, (Service Connection bearing No. MDK937 in the name of M/s Perfect Knitters Limited) Plot No.5, lDA, lndrakaran Village, tvledak District rep. by its Asst. GM (Commercial), Y. Sathi Ralu.

)

.PETITIONER

AND

1 The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Medak District, at Sangareddy, Telangana State.

The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Medak District, at Sangareddy, Telangana State.

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman and lvlanaging Director, Vidyut Soud ha, Hyderabad,Telangana State.

The Chief Engineer, SLDC, The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its Secretary, A.P. Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Clause 13(b) of the Proceedings TSERC/Secy/'1 5912015 dated 18.08.2015 of the 6th respondent in so far as^it stipulating the availment of Open Access Power round the clock^{(RTC) is} concerned as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, discriminatory,

7

unauthorized and violative of Articles 1a, 1g(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of Ind ia.

l.A. NO:^'t OF 2015 WPMP. NO: 48648 OF 2015 I

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 direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to avail Open Access Power by suspending the Clause 13(b) of the Proceedings TSERC/Secy/1 59/2015 dated '18.08.2015 of the 6th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, sc FoR TGSPDCL

,,

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.S.PRASAD, SC FOR TGERC

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

WRIT P ETITIO No. 7ALg oF²⁰¹⁵

ORD ER:

Heard Sri^{D.V.NagarjunBabu, learned counsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner, Sri N'sreedharReddy'} learend Standing^{Counsel for TGSPDCL,appearing on behalf} of the respondent^{Nos.1 to 5 and Sri P'S'Prasad' learned} Standing Counsel^{for TGERC,appearing on behalf of the} /respondent No.6.

2. Th oetitioner oDroa ched he Court se^ekinq raver as

under:

"...to issue a writ or^{order of directionmore} particularly one in the^{nature of Writ of Mandamus} Proceedings declaring Clause^{13(b) of the} TSERC/Secy/l5g/2015^{dated 18.08'2015 of the 6th} respondent^{ln so far as it stipulating the availment of Open} Access Power^{round the clockRTC is concernedas highly} illegal, arbitrary,^{unjust, irrational, discriminatory'} unauthorized^{and violative of Articles 14 19(1Xg)and 21} of the Constitution^{of India.'."}

It is^{represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf} of the^{petitioner that the cause of action in the presentwrit petition} does not survive^{for adjudication any more'}

2

Bringing the said submission of the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner on record,the} writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.^{However, there}

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequet, the miscellaneous^petitions,if

any, pending in the Writ Petition^{shall also standclosed.}

SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA^RAO A GISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

TT-'._= \b=-ct.*^OFFICER .J

One CC to SRI^{D.V.NAGARJUNABABU,Advocate [OPUCI}

One CC to^{SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL[OPUCI} 3. One CC to SRI^{P S.PRASAD'SC FORTGERC[OPUC]}

Two CD CoPies

BSR

BSR GJP (n-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310212025

ORDER

WP.No.37819 of 2015

1 t\E Sf4 Ie
(
/. l',I_'\ 2 3 APn 2025
, DF.q,. o
^-aH:

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

AS INFRUCTUOUS,

WITHOUT GOSTS (+ I ?'t3 Lt^y{' IJ