Telangana High Court
The Chief General Manager vs M/S. Ankit Packaging Limited on 21 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 36841 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order
passed by the 2nd respondent - Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal
No. 28 of 2023-24, dated 23.10.2023.
2. The case of petitioners - TGSPDCL is that the 1st
respondent is a HT Consumer vide HT SC No. MDK 558 (SGR
558); power supply was released on 28.01.1993 and it was
disconnected on 30.12.2009 due to non-payment of Current
Consumption Charges. Subsequently, the 1st respondent sought
restoration of power supply under Sick Industries Revival
Scheme. In that regard, petitioners and the 1st respondent
entered into a separate HT Agreement on 10.05.2010 and power
supply was restored on 11.05.2010 under the provisions of Sick
Industries Revival Scheme. As the 1st respondent has once again
defaulted in payment of C.C. Charges, power supply was
disconnected by petitioners on 09.08.2010. In spite of several
notices, dues amounting to Rs. 12,30,603/- were not paid by
the 1st respondent. Therefore, as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General
Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS in short), the HT
Agreement of the 1st respondent was terminated on 10.05.2012
ie. after completion of minimum guaranteed period of two years
from the date of HT Agreement dated 10.05.2010.
2.1. Thereafter, petitioners initiated steps for recovery of
amounts from the 1st respondent under APSEB (Recovery of
Dues) Act, 1984 and APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 and
issued Notice in Form 'A' dated 21.08.2018 for recovery of
Rs. 9,15,530/- after adjusting the available security deposit of
Rs. 3,25,254/-. As there was no response from the 1st
respondent, Notice in Form 'B' was issued on 31.08.2019 for
payment of Rs. 21,36,882/ which includes surcharge from the
date of termination of agreement of the 1st respondent.
Petitioners have also addressed letter to the District Collector for
recovery of electricity arrears under the provisions of Revenue
Recovery Act, by attaching and sale of immovable property
belonging to the 1st respondent.
2.2. At that stage, the 1st respondent made
representations dated 19.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 for
restoration of power supply and waiver of surcharge. As
petitioners do not have power to waive surcharge, a letter was
addressed to the 1st respondent dated 15.12.2021 to pay
Rs. 21,36,882/-. The 1st respondent then approached the
Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) by filing a
Complaint vide No. CG/664/22-23/Sangareddy Circle, to set
aside the notice issued under Revenue Recovery Act for an
amount of Rs. 21,36,882/ and to waive penal charges including
surcharge from the date of disconnection of power supply and
also for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 3,25,254/-.
The CGRF rejected the complaint of the 1st respondent by Award
dated 10.08.2023.
2.3. Aggrieved by the said rejection order of CGRF, the
1st respondent filed Appeal before the 2nd Respondent (Vidyut
Ombudsman) in Appeal No. 28/2023-24. The said Appeal was
partly allowed by Award dated 03.10.2023, directing petitioners
to collect Rs. 21,36,882/- as mentioned in notice issued in
Form 'B without levying any further surcharge. Challenging the
same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri N.
Sreedhar Reddy submits that for every delayed payment by the
consumer, surcharge is imposed as per the orders issued by
Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission ('the Commission')
and the 2nd Respondent can only follow the said provisions of
law and pass orders, whereas in the case on hand, the 2nd
Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and directed petitioners
not to levy any further surcharge beyond the notice issued in
Form 'B' dated 31.08.2019. Therefore, the Award of the 2nd
Respondent is beyond its jurisdiction. He further contends that
as the impugned Award passed by the 2nd Respondent is
without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside to the
extent of directing petitioners to collect only Rs. 21,36,882/- as
mentioned in the Notice issued in Form 'B' without levying any
surcharge.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent
Ms. Nishta argued that as per the directions of the 2nd
Respondent in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, the 1st respondent
paid the entire amount of Rs. 21,36,882/- along with additional
amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards delay vide DD No. 323228
dated 18.09.2024 and DD No. 323242 dated 25.09.2024 and
the same were received by petitioners. It is further contended
that surcharge on the delayed payment can be collected only
from the date of termination of agreement and not beyond the
same. It is further contended that statutory period of two years
shall be reckoned from the date of the first agreement i.e. from
28.01.1993 and not from 10.05.2010, therefore, petitioners
ought to have terminated the agreement as on the date of
disconnection i.e. 09.08.2010. Petitioners were not entitled to
levy surcharge beyond the date of disconnection for non-
payment of C.C. charges and termination of agreement ought to
have taken place on 09.08.2010 as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of GTCS
and not on 10.05.2012 which is done in the case on hand. It is
further contended that in any event, the entire amount as
directed by the 2nd Respondent along with additional amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the 1st respondent by way of
Demand Drafts and the same were acknowledged by petitioners.
The 2nd Respondent has therefore, rightly allowed the Appeal
filed by the 1st respondent in part and there is no illegality or
irregularity in the Award. There are no merits in the Writ
Petition, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed, contends
learned counsel.
5. In reply, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners
contends that the Commission (TGERC) has framed electricity
Supply Code vide Regulation 5 of 2004, as per which the
licencee is entitled to collect additional charges for delayed
payment of bills by imposing surcharge. It was stated that every
consumer is liable to pay the delayed payment surcharge on the
bill amount as per the Retail Tariff Orders issued by the ERC
from time to time following are the rates extracted here below.
"Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS)
LT CATEGORY
a. In case of LT-I (A), LT-I (B), LT II (A), LT II (D), LT IV and
LT V(B), if payment is made after due date, the consumers are
liable to pay, Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) per month on
the bill amount at the rates given in the table below.
LT I (A) Rs. 10 per month
LT I(B), LT II(A), LT II(D), LT IV & LT V(B) Rs. 25 per month
b. In case of LT II (B), LT II (C), LT III, LT VI and LT VII
and LT IX, the Licensee shall levy Delayed Payment Surcharge
(DPS) on the bill amount at the rate of 5 paise/Rs.100/day
calculated from the due date mentioned on the bill, upto the
date of payment of Rs. 150 whichever is higher. In case of grant
of installments, the Licensee shall levy interest at the rate of
18% per annum on the outstanding amounts compounded
annually and the two (DPS and interest) shall not be levied at
the same time.
HT CATEGORY
The Licensee shall charge the Delayed Payment
Surcharge (DPS) per month on the bill amount at the rate of 5
paise/Rs. 100/day or Rs.550 whichever is higher. In case of
grant of instalments, the Licensee shall levy interest at the rate
of 18% per annum on the outstanding amounts, compounded
annually and the two charges shall not be levied at the same
time".
5.1. As the Service Connection of the 1st respondent is
under HT Category, the Licensee is entitled for Delayed Payment
Surcharge on the bill amount at the rate of 5 paise/Rs.100/day
or Rs.550 whichever is higher. Further, in case of grant of
installments, the Licensee is entitled to levy interest @ 18% p.a.
on the outstanding amounts, compounded annually. Since the
2nd Respondent did not consider these aspects, it has exceeded
its jurisdiction and allowed the Appeal filed by the 1st
respondent in part directing petitioners not to levy any further
surcharge beyond the notice issued in Form 'B' dated
31.08.2019. The Vidyuth Ombudsman is entitled to pass Award
strictly in accordance with the Electricity Act 2003, Regulations
framed by the Regulatory Commission from time to time or
following any judgment of the Constitutional Courts. Viewing
from any angle, the Award of the 2nd Respondent is not
supported by any provision of law, therefore, the same is liable
to be set aside.
6. This Court, having considered the rival
submissions and on perusing the Regulations framed by
Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission, and the tariff
orders of the ERC, wherein the Licensee is entitled to levy
Delayed Payment Surcharge, holds that the 2nd Respondent
(Vidyut Ombudsman) has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding
that petitioners were not entitled to levy any further surcharge
beyond the date of Form 'B' Notice dated 31.08.2019. The 2nd
Respondent has not referred to or relied on any provision of law
for coming to such conclusion. Therefore the Award passed by
the 2nd Respondent Vidyuth Ombudsman is beyond its
jurisdiction, hence the same is hereby set aside.
7. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
21st November 2025
ksld
