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
