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

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5908 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited, having its^{registered Officeat First Floor} 1 10, Bhuvana Towers, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad,^{Hyderabad,Telangana -} 500033 Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Allampati Lokeshwar^Reddy.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

q...f^AND

¶11

1 . Southern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited^{TSSPDCL, Corporate} Office, Central Secretariat Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana^{- 50OO22} Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, TGSPDCL, Operation^{CentralCircle,Chandra} Vihar Complex, 6th Floor M.G.Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to pass an order or orders or writ or direction more^particularly one^{in the} nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{Respondents in issuing} demands for^payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge^{(-CSS-) for the FY 2005-06to} 201 4-1 5 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/CC/HYD/SAO/AAO(HTyJAO(H'T)lD.No.7^{077 12025} dated 31tO1t2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent,^{purportedto be based on the} Tariff Order dated 30/08/2024 issued by the^{Telangana Electricity Regu-} Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for^{FY 2005-06to 201 4-15. as} arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Judgment^{dated 1911212023 of this Honourable} Court in W.P.No. 14918 of 2006 and batch,^{provisionsof the Electricity Act. 2003'} besides being violative of the^{petitioner'srights guaranteed under Article 14.} 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and^{consequently set aside the same.}

-f F

-,- r,

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fili.'d in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondernts not to take any coercive steps including that of disconnection of porrver supply pursuant to the demand notice vide Lr.No.SE /oP/cc/HYD/sAo/AAo(HTyJAo(H.T)/D.No .7077 tzo2s dated 31 /01 i2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S ]NDUS LAW FIRM

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

r'1{

,"

n

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

wRIT PETITION No.5908 0F 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶29

-{T

¶30

The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶31

" ...to issue an order or orders or writ or direction more pafticularly one in the nature oF Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in issuing demands for payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for the Fy 2005-06 to 2014-15 yrde Lr. No. S E / OP / CCl HY D/SAO/AAo ( HT) D AO U.r) / D.No.7077/25 dt. 31.01.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent purported to be based on tlre Tariff Order dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the CSS for FY 2005-06 to 2014-15 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Judgment dated 19-12-2023 of this Hon'ble Court in W.p. No. 14918 of 2006 and batch provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 besides being violative of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under

I,

c

J;. -.^j&

2 wP_:;908 2025

Article 14 i9(1Xg) of^{the Constitutionof} India and and consequently set aside^thesame pass.-.".

¶37

The case of the^{petitioner, in brief,is that the petitioner} is providing hospitality^{services in Hyderabadand has obtained} High Tension^power supply^{connectionfrom the Telangana} Electricity tlegulatory^{Commission.The petitionercrlmpany} had entered into an HT agreement^{with a contractedm'lximum} demand of 210 KVA/HP and^{it is having power through open} access to its unit with^{service connectionbearing No. HTSC} No.GDC030 under the name of^{M/s. P. PrabhakerReddy. It is} further the case of the^{petitioner that subsequentto the} passing of the impugned order by the^{TGERC, theznd} respondent had raised a demand^{noticedated 3l.t)1.2025} demanding to^pay an amount of^{Rs.1,02,43,033/-and the} petitioner is; entitled to the benefit of the Electricity^(Removal of Difficulties) Second order,^{2005 and no CSScan be levied} on it for FY 2005-06 to^{2014-15. Hence the petitioner} approached the Couft by filing^{the present writ petition.}

, t

3 wP_5908 2025

i.:,..:.^.

)1

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2025 had been acknowledged by the office of the 2't, respondent herein on 22.02.2025 itself but no action is initiated on [he said representatioi.r of the petitioner dated 22.02.2025 as on date.

¶43

e.^'-,

¶44

Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the writ petition could be disposed of clirecting the 2"d respontlent to consader the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petition er vide representation dated 22.02.2025 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein in pursuance to the demand notice dated 31.O1.2O25 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, in accordance to law within a reasonable period.

¶45

Takino into nsideration :

¶46

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶47

case,

¶48

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and

I

4

w? 5908 2025

i

f^t'i

learned Standing^{Counsetappearing onbehalf of} respondent Nos.l and^2,

¶55

(c) The fact as borne on record that no orders had been^passed on^{petitioner's representation dated} 22.02.2C.25 issued to the^{2nd respondent herein in} pursuance to the impugned demand vide letter^dated 31.01.2025 issued to the^{petitionerherein by the2nd} respondent,

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of directing^{the 2nd} respondent to consider the^{grievanceof the petitioner} as put forth vide^{petitioner's detailed representation} dated 22.O2.2O25 addressed to the^{2nd respondent} herein in response to the impugned^demandnotice dated 31.O1.2O25 issued to the^{petitioner herein by the} 2nd respondent duly considering al! the objections^of the petitioner as put forth vide the said^{representation} dated 22.02.2C.25 of the^petitioner to the^2nd respondent herein in accordance to^{law, in conformity} with principles of natural^{justice by giving reasonable} opportunity of^{personalhearing} to^{the petitioner,}

L.

5 wP 5908 2025

,1

within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

q: f

¶62

Till the above exercise is initiated by the 2"d respondent herein and appropriate orders are passed by the 2nd respondent duly consadering the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner vide petitioner's representation dated l2Z.OZ.2Ol2Sas per the directions as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated as above, the respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned demand notice dated 31.01.2O2S issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if

¶64

any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶65

SD/-P. PADMANABHA^REDDY AS S T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER

¶66

To

¶67

The Chairman and Managing^{Director, Southem Distribution Company of} Telangana Limited TSSPDCL,^{Corporate Office, Central Secretariat} Khairatabad, Hyderabad,^{Telangana - 5OOO22.}

¶68