Disposed

M/s. Aditya Agro Industries v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Feb 2025WP/4924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a demand notice seeking recovery towards loss of revenue from collection of energy charges at actual voltage instead of specified voltage. Respondents undertook not to take coercive steps. Court disposed the writ petition directing respondents to follow due procedure under law and principles of natural justice before any recovery.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Aditya Agro Industries Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:4924 OF 2o2s

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Aditya Agro lndustries, A partnership firm Having its registered office at 5-101, Pasra, Govindaraopet, Mulugu^-Telangana Being^{representedby its} ltilanaging Partner Repala Satyan aftyana

¶10

Repala Satyanarayana, S/o. Repala Sudharshanam, Age.46^years Occ. Business, R/o. 6-36/1, Narsingapur, Laxmidevipeta, Venkatapur Mandalam Mlulugu- 506 345- Telangana

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Energy and Electricity, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶14

Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, H.No. 2-5-3'112, Corporate Office,Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal- 506001, Telangana

¶15

J Superintendent Engineer, Operation, JS- Bhupalpally

¶16

4 Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, TSNPDCL, Mulugu

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more^{particularlyone in the nature} of writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the^{Respondents in issuing} Communication dated 11.10.2024 thereby calling upon the^{Petitioner to INR} 13,24,671.391- allegedly towards loss of revenue caused due to^collectionof energy charges at actual voltage instead of specified voltage as^{being illegal,} arbitrary, and for being unconstitutional apart from being^{violativeof provisionsof} Electricity Act, 2013 and rules and regulations thereto and consequently^{set aside} the same

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under section^{1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend the operation^{of the lmpugned communicationdated 11.10.2024 including} all consequeniial^{action s/proceedings thereto pending disposal of the Writ Petition}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl. PASHAMMOHITH}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1:GP FOR ENERGY}

¶23

Counsel forthe^{RespondentNos.2 to 4: SRI A. CHANDRA SHAKER SC FOR} TGERC

¶24

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶25

HON,BLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.4924^OF 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri Pasham Mohith,^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioners, learlred} Assistant Government Pleader^{for Energy, appearing on} behalf of respondent No.l,^{Sri A. Chandra Shaker,} learned Standing Counsel for^{TGERC,appearingon} behalf of resPondent^{Nos.2 to 4.}

¶29

The petitioners^{approachedthe Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶30

" ...to issue an appropriate writ order or^direction more^particularly one in^{the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring^{the actions. of the Respondents} in issuing Communication dated^ll'tl-2024 thereby calling upon the^{Petitioners toINR} t3,24,67t.39l- allegedly towards^{loss of revenue} caused due to collection^{of energy chargesat actual} voltage instead of^{specified voltageas being illegal,} arbitrary and for^{being unconstitutionalapart from} being violative of^{provisions of Electricity Act, 2013} and rules and^{regulationstheretoand consequently} set aside the same and Pass..."'

¶31

.,..::7:-::-

¶32

2 wP 4924 2025

¶33

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are engaged in business of custom milling of paddy and supply of rice, par-boiled rice to the State government under the CMR Scheme. The petitioners intended to avail supply with a contracted demand of 242 KVA and as per the applicable rules voltage level of 11 KV ought to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. It is however submitted that since 11 KV feeder line was not available the 3'd respondent had sanctioned electricity connection for supply of CMD of 242 KVA at 33 KV voltage. However, the 3'd respondent has high handedly issued proceedings dated 11.10.2024 cailing upon the petitioners to pay INR 13,24,671.39/- towards loss of revenue caused due to collection of energy charges at actual voltage instead of specified voltage and further called upon the petitioners to pay such dues failing which such dues would be levied in the consumption bills raised on the petitioners in future. The petitioner service connection falls under 11 KV category, however, the 2nd respondent had erroneously levied tariff applicable in respect of 33 KV voltage supply i.e. 6.1S instead of levying 11 KV voltage tarifF i.e. 6.65 from April, 2019 until

!i,;*:;:d.\jr-.

wP 4924 2025

, ,

I I

)

to October,^{2022. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated} LL.1O.2024,^{the present writ petition is filed.}

¶40

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of^the iretitioners^{submitsthat the impugned notices are in clear} violation^{of the principles of naturaljustice and further the} figures^{arrived at in the said notices had been unilateraland} the claims^{made by the respondentsbarred by limitation.}

¶41

5.^{The learned Standing Counsel upon instructions} submits^{that the respondentsare not initiating any coercive} steps^{against the petitionersin pursuance to the impugned} notice dated^{lL.LO.2024 issued by the 3'd respondent to the} petitioners^{hereinand t hc rFsnrl} n tlc ntc l raatt tl fnllarer drra un rl w n in fa n r issued in acc nc to the^petitione rs herein and th roc mplated under the rules in force a n datq tn llowed in initiatin o action aoarn the Detationers.

¶42

6 Takin into considera tion

¶43

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case,

E:&,!Ee;--

.,} ..,1

4 wP 4924 2025

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for TGERC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4,

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due procedure under law. The respondents are further directed not to initiate any coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned notice dated 11.1O.2O24 issued by the 3'd respondent tq the petitioners herein, till the required procedure as per the rules an force as on date is followed by the respondents in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice as represented before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel in the^present

¶50

case. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^p endinq in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶52

SD/. T. TIRUMALA^DEV] STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To, \

¶55

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Dept. of Energyand Electricity' Secretariat} Buildings, Hyderabad

¶56

2 NorthernPowerDistributionCompanyLimited,H'No-2-5-31/2,Corporate oifi;";V,dii Bhivi^{n, t tat<ka lag utta,Hana mkonda,Warangal- 50600 1'} Telangana

¶57

Superintendent Engineer,^{Operation,JS- Bhupalpally}

¶58

Assistant Divisional^{Engineer,Operations' TSNPDCL, Mulugu}

¶59

One CC to SRI^{PASHAM MOHITHAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶60

One CC^{to SRI A. CHANDRA SHAKER SC FOR TGERC [OPUC]} T.TwoCCstoGPFoRENERGY,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.[oUTl

¶61

Two CD^CoPies KKS GJP

CC TODAY

, I

HIGH COURT

DATE D:2710212025

ORDER

E S I AI
e
((
t)l I 0 !lhH 2$ft Ilz
F

o
t:

¶68

I
I

¶69

WP.No.4924 of 2025

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

LI
tlrf

M/s. Aditya Agro Industries v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s. Aditya Agro Industries v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vemula Nagesh Vs The State of Telangana

Gundagalla.Bhulaxmi, Vs The State of Telangana. Rep.by its Principal Secretary to

M/s. Goel Plastics Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Ts Ltd.

M/s. Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited Vs Southern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited Tsspdcl

Yanala Veera Reddy Vs Duggempudi Ravindra Reddy

M/s. Vasavi Agro Industries a partnership firm Vs State of Telangana