Telangana High Court
Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad And 3 Others vs Director, M/S Suguna Metals Pvt Ltd, ... on 16 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.1006 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against an order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17287 of 2009, by which writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent is a private limited company, which has established an industrial unit for manufacture of M.S. Billets. The respondent obtained high tension power supply from the appellants with contracted maximum demand of 4900 KVA. Thereupon by ::2::
an order dated 13.11.2007, the same was sanctioned. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.51,21,620.00 towards service line charges for laying an independent line from Parigi sub- station to the respondent's factory at Narayanapur Village, covering distance of about 7.5 kilometers. It is not a disputed fact that the respondent carried out the work of laying the service line at its own cost and the appellants accepted 10% of the service line charges i.e., a sum of Rs.5,12,162.00 towards supervision charges. The respondent got the load of independent 33 KV feeder from Parigi sub-station to its factory under the supervision of the officers of appellant No.1. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.49,89,750.00 towards development charges at the rate of Rs.1,200.00 per KVA and an amount of Rs.73,50,000.00 towards security deposit. The power supply was released to the respondent's unit on 22.11.2008.
4. Subsequently, the respondent submitted an application seeking additional load of 1100 KVA which was released on 14.05.2009. It is also not in dispute that ::3::
except the respondent's unit, the feeder does not serve any other consumer. The feeder was laid by the respondent at its cost under the supervision of officers of appellant No.1 duly paying supervision charges.
5. However, the appellants by a notice dated 10.08.2009 raised a demand levying voltage surcharge for the months of December, 2008 and January, March, April and May, 2009. The appellants thereupon challenged the aforesaid notice in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the feeder in question is a dedicated feeder and therefore, no voltage surcharge can be levied on the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra court appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and ought to have appreciated that the correspondence between the officers of the Department cannot be taken into consideration for holding that the respondent is drawing power from a dedicated feeder.
::4::
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by learned Single Judge.
8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
9. The fact that the subject feeder was an independent feeder, which has not been disputed by the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the said feeder was laid down by the respondent at its cost under the supervision of officers of appellant No.1 by duly paying the supervision charges and after depositing all the required amounts either towards service line charges or development charges or security deposit, etc. It is also not in dispute that the said feeder is not serving any other unit or the consumer and is exclusively supplying power to the respondent's unit.
10. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts emerging from the record, which even otherwise have not been disputed by the appellants in their counter, the learned ::5::
Single Judge has rightly recorded the finding that no voltage surcharge could have been demanded from the respondent.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
12. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 16.12.2023 KL