Telangana High Court
Telangana State Southern Power ... vs Sri Balaji Construction Company on 25 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.23 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
TSSPDCL for appellants.
Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior
Counsel representing Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi,
learned counsel for respondent.
2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the
order, dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.1850 of 2023.
3. Brief facts:
Respondent claims to be the owner of the property
bearing Municipal No.6-3-1091/C/1 in Sy.Nos.2, 3, 13,
13/1, 13/2 and 14 situated at Raj Bhavan Road, 2 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
Somajiguda, Hyderabad and the appellant No.1
provided service connection to the said premises in the
name of the respondent vide service connection
No.HDC782 under High Tension (HT) Category-II
(Commercial).
4. Respondent has let out the said property to an IT
company named M/s. 24/7 Customer Private Limited
and the said company applied for incentives by making
an application for providing power supply under HT
Category-I (Industrial Category). The said application
was accepted by the appellants who billed the said
company under Category-I (Industrial Category).
5. Thereafter, the property was let out to M/s. ADP
Private Limited which is also an IT company in the year
2013. The said company made an application for
change of name of the consumer with effect from
21.07.2013 under the same category i.e., HT Category-I
(Industrial Category).
3 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
6. The respondent made an application in the year
2021 for change of name of the consumer in its own
name and the said name was changed with effect from
28.06.2021.
7. In the year 2022, the Assistant Divisional
Engineer of the appellants inspected the HT service
No.HDC782 standing in the name of the respondent,
noticed that the respondent availed 3 phase supply
from HDC782 and was billed under HT Category-I
(Industrial Category) and M/s. ADP Private Limited was
using power supply, though being an IT company by
not furnishing the CCITI certificate issued by the
Information Technology and Communications (IT&C)
Department in favour of M/s. ADP Private Limited.
8. The appellants booked a case for short billing, for
the difference in the charges for Commercial Category
for the period from June, 2013 to September, 2020,
while M/s. ADP Private Limited was using power 4 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
supply. An assessment notice, dated 30.09.2022, was
issued to the respondent raising a demand of
Rs.2,46,93,614/-. Challenging the said assessment
order, the writ petition is filed.
9. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ
petition, vide order, dated 28.04.2023, held that the
respondent is not an IT company but is the owner of the
premises in which the IT companies occupied on lease.
Initially, the respondent had let out the premises to
M/s. 24/7 Customer Private Limited and subsequently
to M/s. ADP Private Limited. Since both the companies
were admittedly IT companies, the appellants had
provided services under HT Category-I (Industrial
Category). The learned Single Judge also held that
though M/s. ADP Private Limited did not produce the
CCITI certificate, the minutes of the meeting held by the
Committee formed for conversion of Industrial Power
Tariff considered the lease taken by the said company 5 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
in the respondent's premises and allowed to change the
name of the consumer for providing services under HT
Category-I (Industrial Category).
10. Learned Single Judge further held that the
contention of the appellants that the said company did
not produce CCITI certificate and the respondent is
liable to make payment of demand arising out of short
billing of consumer charges is not sustainable and the
alleged short billing demand notice was set aside. It is
against this order of the learned Single Judge, the
present writ appeal is preferred.
11. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel
appearing for appellants that incentives under HT
Category-I (Industrial Category) are applicable to IT
companies and that respondent is not an IT company
and is the owner of the premises and IT companies had
taken the premises on lease. That initially, the
appellants provided services under HT Category-I 6 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
(Industrial Category) to M/s. 24/7 Customer Private
Limited and subsequently to M/s. ADP Private Limited
and that M/s. ADP Private Limited did not produce the
CCITI certificate. It is further submitted that learned
Single Judge ought to have taken into account that non
production of CCITI certificate would entitle appellants
to receive the difference of charges under short billing
from the respondent and the same was not appreciated
by the learned Single Judge in the right perspective.
12. It is further submitted by the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellants that the requirement of
submission of CCITI certificate is a sine qua non for
incentives to be granted. That the learned Single Judge
should not have taken into consideration the minutes of
the meeting of the Committee. That this finding of the
learned Single Judge is not in tune with regulations. It
is submitted that as per the incentive scheme issued by
IT&C Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 7 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
there should be service connection in the name of the
company which is availing the benefit and the CCITI
certificate has the name of the service provider and also
the name of the consumer i.e., beneficiary company.
That the order is bad in law and interference is
necessitated.
13. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent that the learned
Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion and
has supported the order of the learned Single Judge.
That once the authorities have granted the service after
verification, they cannot turn around and raise the
demands. That no interference is warranted in the
order of the learned Single Judge.
14. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and
order of the learned Single Judge.
15. Considered the rival submissions. This Court is of
the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly 8 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
taken into consideration the minutes of the meeting
held by the Committee formed for conversion of
Industrial power Tariff wherein the lease taken by the
company in the respondent's premises is considered
and was allowed to change the name of the consumer
though the CCITI certificate was not produced. The fact
that the Committee formed for conversion of Industrial
power Tariff has taken into consideration the aspect
that the company (M/s. ADP Private Limited) is an IT
company and has granted the name change by service
provider, is suffice. The learned Single Judge has
discussed the issues elaborately and has arrived at the
conclusion. The impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity and we uphold the same. Needless to say
that the appellants are at liberty to pursue the matter
in accordance with law against the appropriate
consumer(s).
9 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.23 of 2024
16. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal is
disposed of at admission stage. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
__________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 25.01.2024 KRR
