Telangana High Court
M/S. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. vs Telangana State Southern Power ... on 8 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.690 and 693 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)
Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved,
on the joint request, these writ appeals were heard on admission
and interim relief.
2. Admittedly, in these writ appeals the challenge is mounted
to a common interlocutory order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in batch of matters, whereby a partial
interim protection was granted to the appellant.
3. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri Deepak Chowdary, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that in the writ petitions, the petitioner had called in question the
legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18.06.2025,
whereby the respondents have failed to follow the binding Division
Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.14918 of 2006 and batch
decided on 19.12.2023.
4. The bone of contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant is that in the said batch namely in W.P.No.14918 of
2006, twin aspects were subject matter of challenge. The first
challenge was to the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties)
Second Order, 2005 ('Order of 2005') and the second challenge
was to the demands raised from the consumers of the non-
conventional energy generating companies on account of cross-
subsidy charges. It is canvassed that admittedly the challenge to
Order of 2005 failed as per the judgment of the Division Bench,
but challenge to the demand notices succeeded and accordingly,
all the demand notices were quashed.
5. It is strenuously contended that a bare perusal of parties
names in those writ petitions will show that in number of petitions
M/s.Ind Bharath Energies Limited ('Generator') was the petitioner
No.2. Thus, Generator succeeded in those petitions in relation to
the demands and the present writ appellant is the consumer who
is getting the electricity from the said Generator.
6. When the present appellant suffered the order dated
18.06.2025, they filed the instant writ petitions and assailed the
said order by contending that since appellant is consumer of the
Generator, who succeeded in W.P.No.14918 of 2006 and batch,
impliedly it should be presumed that there exists a
'sanction'/'authorization' in favour of the Generator pursuant to
which the petitioner were getting the electricity. Thus, the learned
Single Judge has erred in not following the binding Division Bench
judgment of this Court.
7. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel by placing
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sel and
Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited 1 contended
that no doubt the scope of interference in an intra-Court appeal
against the interlocutory relief is limited, as per the said judgment
the impugned order falls within the ambit of 'Intermediary' or
'Interlocutory judgment'. Hence, the writ appeal is maintainable.
To elaborate, he submits that in the impugned order dated
18.06.2025 the respondents demanded six documents from the
appellant. The appellant could not furnish the following
document i.e., document No.4:
"The Copy of Sanction/Authorization granted by the State
Government under Section 43 A(1)(C) of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 for claiming of exemption of Cross Subsidy
Surcharge under Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order 2005."
8. To justify this non-supply, learned Senior Counsel submits
that the appellant is not privy to the said document. The
document must be available with the State or the Generator and
MANU/SC/0317/2020
therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the benefit of
similar order passed by the Division Bench.
9. Per contra, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for TGSPDCL, for respondents, supported the impugned order by
contending that the order is interlocutory in nature and does not
have any final impact on the appellant. If the appellant ultimately
succeed in the writ petitions the amount, which was directed to be
deposited by impugned order can be refunded back. The learned
Single Judge in the impugned order has not given any finding
which is final in nature, instead, the learned Single Judge stated
that the matter needs a lengthy hearing. Further, the counter is
yet to be filed by the respondents. Thus, the writ appeals are not
maintainable.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed
heavy reliance on the Power Purchase Agreement, dated
16.11.2000, in which the appellant is a party, and urged that
this agreement was for a period of five years from November,
2000. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14908 of
2006 and batch dealt with the matter which pertains to the
period of 2005 onwards. There is no material on record to show
that the 'agreement/consent' as per Order of 2005, was
prevailing in favour of the generator or the appellant beyond
2005. Heavy reliance is placed on Clause (2) of the Order of
2005, which reads thus:
"2. Exemption from payment of surcharge on the sale
or supply of electricity.-No surcharge would be required to
be paid, in terms of sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Act
on the electricity being sold by the generating companies
with consent of the competent government under clause (c)
of sub-section (1) of section 43 A of the Electricity Act, 1948
(now repealed by the Act), and on the electricity being
supplied by the distribution licensee on the authorization
by the State Government under section 27 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 (now repealed by the Act), till the
current validity of such consent or authorisations."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Lastly, it is submitted that there are batch of writ petitions
wherein similar conditional interim protection was granted by
the learned Single Judge and except the present appellant, none
of the petitioners therein have challenged the similar order.
12. In rejoinder submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant placed heavy reliance on various agreements to show
that it should be presumed that there exists a 'consent' or
'sanction' in favour of the Generator from whom the appellant
had purchased. 'Wheeling agreement' dated 04.01.1999 was
referred to show that the name of the appellant - 'Srinivasa
Resorts Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad', finds place at serial No.5.
Thus, there is no manner of doubt that there existed a
sanction/consent/authorization in favour of the Generator,
otherwise there was no occasion for the Division Bench of this
Court in partly allowing W.P.No.14918 of 2006.
13. The parties have confined their argument to the extent
indicated above.
14. Admittedly, the writ petitions are pending before the
learned Single Judge and these writ appeals are directed against
the common interlocutory order dated 30.06.2005. The relevant
portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads thus:
" Further, on perusal of the record, it is revealed that in
W.P.Nos. 14918 of 2006 & batch, the case of the petitioners
therein was that the impugned demands raised therein for
cross subsidy surcharge were in violation of provisions of
Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005,
whereas in the present case, the main grievance of the
petitioners herein is against the action of the respondents in
insisting the petitioners to produce certain documents for
availing the benefit of exemption from payment of cross
subsidy charges. In that view of the matter, prima facie,
this Court is of the view that the lis raised in the present writ
petitions is not covered by the adjudication of the Division
Bench in its order dated 19.12.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.
14918 of 2006 & batch.
As regards the other contentions of the petitioners as
well, at this stage of adjudication, this Court is not inclined
to accept the same, particularly, even before a counter
affidavit is filed by the respondents.
That apart, while dealing with similar matters, this
Court expressed the opinion that when the petitioners are
claiming exemption, it is their primary duty to produce all
relevant documents before the authorities and they cannot
shirk off their duty simply stating that the applications filed
under the RTI Act seeking to provide copies of relevant
documents, are pending before the authorities.
Insofar as the judgment relied by the learned senior
counsel is concerned, prima facie, this Court is of the
view that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts
and needs an elaborate consideration as regards its
applicability, at this stage of adjudication, to the present
case, for which a detailed counter affidavit is required
from the respondents.
In view of the above, this Court does not find any
ground to take a different view than the one expressed by
this Court in W.P.Nos. 16769 of 16785 of 2025 vide order
dated 23.06.2025.
Hence there shall be an interim direction, as prayed
for, subject to payment of 50% of the amounts demanded
under the impugned demand notices within a period of one
week from today. Further, it is also made clear that the
payments made by the petitioners, in pursuance to the
present impugned orders, are subject to the outcome of the
writ petitions and the respondents shall not claim any
equities."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. The learned Single Judge considered the order passed in
W.P.No.14918 of 2006 and batch and opined that in the present
case, the main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions
is that the respondents are insisting them to produce the
relevant documents to show that they are entitled to the benefit
of exemption from payment of cross subsidy charges. Prima
facie, the learned Single Judge opined that in the absence of the
said documents, the matter is not covered by the order of the
Division Bench in W.P.No.14918 of 2006 and batch.
16. This is trite that in intra Court appeal, interference can be
made against interlocutory order only when orders are falling
under certain categories. The routine orders, which are passed
to facilitate the progress of the case till passing of the final
judgment or orders which may cause inconvenience and
prejudice but do not finally determine the rights and
obligations, cannot be called as 'judgment'. This Court
considered this aspect in great detail in W.A.No.82 of 2025 and
batch, dated 18.02.2025, and considered the judgment of
Shyam Sel and Power Limited (supra) as well on which
reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant. This Court in the said judgment, opined as under:
"6. A careful reading of impugned order shows that the
Writ Petitions are still pending and interim order granted by
learned single Judge was not vacated and applications filed
for vacate stay were dismissed. In this backdrop, it is to be
seen whether these Writ Appeals can be entertained.
7. In The University of Hyderabad, rep. by its
Registrar, Central University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli,
Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain and Others (2013 SCC
OnLine AP 342), a Division Bench of this Court considered
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it provides
an appeal from a 'judgment' of single Judge in exercise of
original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The previous
judgment of a Division Bench in Shah Babulal Khimji v.
Jayaben D.Kania (1981 AIR 1786) was considered and it
was held that 'orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are
not 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals provided
under the Letter Patent'. Categories (iv) and (v) read thus:
"(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the
progress of the case till its culmination in the final
judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or
some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally
determine the rights and obligations of the parties."
Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under:
" At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed
that the learned Single Judge has not decided the
rights and obligations of the parties and only
passed interlocutory orders and hence in our
considered view the same does not satisfy the
trappings of the judgments as defined under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be
appropriate for the appellant to file vacate
petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of
with the said observation."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), on
which heavy reliance is placed, the Supreme Court held as
under:
"15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed
during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the
other of the following categories:
(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in
controversy in the main case.
(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which
materially and directly affects the final decision in
the main case.
(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or
question which is not the subject-matter of the main
case.
(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the
progress of the case till its culmination in the final
judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or
some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally
determine the rights and obligations of the parties.
16. The term "judgment" occurring in clause 15 of
the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the
judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders
enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other
orders which, though may not finally and
conclusively determine the rights of parties with
regard to all or any matters in controversy, may
have finality in regard to some collateral matter,
which will affect the vital and valuable rights and
obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders
which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are,
therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing
appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other
hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are
not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals
provided under the Letters Patent."
(Emphasis Supplied)"
17. If the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is tested
on the anvil of principles laid down in the aforesaid case, it will
be clear that the impugned order, by no stretch of imagination,
can be termed as 'judgment' or 'intermediary' or 'interlocutory
judgment'. The impugned order shows that i) the learned Single
Judge has prima facie expressed his view which does not deal
with the rights and liabilities of the parties finally;
ii) counter is yet to be filed before the learned Single Judge and
the matter deserves elaborate hearing; iii) no issue which
materially or substantially affects the final decision of the writ
petition is decided; and iv) it does not have any impact on any
collateral issue or question which was not subject matter of
main case. Since the impugned order is not pregnant with any
final finding which can have any thread relation with the rights
and liabilities of the parties, this Court is unable to persuade
itself with the line of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant.
18. The matter may be viewed from another angle. If
ultimately the writ petitions are allowed, the appellant will get
back the 50% of the amount which is directed to be deposited
by the learned Single Judge by passing the impugned
interlocutory order.
19. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, at this stage has
taken a prima facie plausible view and not followed the order of
the Division Bench mechanically in the absence of showing the
relevant documents to establish that demand raised in these
matters after 2005 relating to non-conventional energy is on
account of cross subsidy charges and is admittedly made in
violation of the Order of 2005.
20. For these cumulative reasons, we decline interference in
these writ appeals filed against the common interlocutory order.
Admission is declined and the writ appeals are dismissed. No
order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
______________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 08.07.2025
GVR/VS
