Telangana High Court
The Superintending Engineer, vs Vidyuth Ombudsman For The State Of ... on 25 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1319 OF 2025
Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for the appellants.
Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 01.07.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18148 of
2019.
2. The appellants herein (Telangana State Southern Power
Distribution Company Limited) filed W.P.No.18148 of 2019 seeking
the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for calling for the records and for
quashing the Award dated 22.04.2019 ('Award') passed by the
respondent No.1/Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana, in
Appeal No.38 of 2018 filed by the respondent No.2/consumer herein.
The respondent No.2/consumer had filed W.P.No.18106 of 2025
seeking a direction to the appellants to implement the Award dated
22.04.2019. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned common
order dated 01.07.2025, dismissed W.P.No.18148 of 2019 filed by the
appellants and disposed of W.P.No.18106 of 2025 filed by the
respondent No.2/consumer by affirming the Award and directing the
appellants to implement the Award as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that
order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners
submits that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned
common order, relied upon the orders dated 08.02.2013 and
14.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court (as
Their Lordships then were) in W.P.No.3534 of 2013 and
W.P.No.13545 of 2012, respectively, which involved similar facts.
Counsel further submits that although the ground of absence of prior
notice before the re-categorization of the services of the respondent
No.2 had been raised in the Writ Petition filed by the appellants, the
learned Single Judge erred in not granting liberty to the appellants to
issue a fresh notice to the respondent No.2/consumer, so as to give
them an opportunity to file objections against the re-classification to
be considered by the appellant before taking steps for change of
category of service.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/consumer
submits that the controversy dates back 15 years and the appellants
cannot now be permitted to issue a fresh notice to the respondent
No.2/consumer.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge especially, paragraph 5 thereof indicates that the
learned Single Judge has solely relied upon the two orders dated
08.02.2013 and 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judges of
this Court (as Their Lordships then were) in W.P.No.3534 of 2013
and W.P.No.13545 of 2012, respectively to reach a decision in the
matter.
7. We have perused the order dated 08.02.2013 passed in
W.P.No.3534 of 2013. It is evident from the said order that the facts
therein were similar to the facts in the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants/writ petitioners.
8. In the present case, the appellants/writ petitioners had issued
electricity bills to the respondent No.2/consumer under the 'HT-
Temporary Supply' category. Prior to 2010, the respondent
No.2/consumer had been classified under the 'HT-II' category. The
respondent No.2/consumer filed Appeal No.38 of 2018 before the
respondent No.1/Vidyut Ombudsman. The Vidyut Ombudsman
allowed the Appeal and set aside the Notices dated 04.04.2012 issued
by the appellants towards back-billing of the respondent
No.2/consumer and directed for adjustment of the amounts paid by
the consumer i.e., Rs.3,44,847/- against service connection RRE
1528 and Rs.3,56,756/- against the service connection RRE 1904 in
the future bills of the two services. The appellants were also directed
to revise the bills from 'HT-Temporary' category to 'HT-II' category till
the date of effect of the Tariff Order 2017-18 from April, 2012. The
appellants were hence constrained to file the Writ Petition before the
learned Single Judge culminating in the impugned order dated
01.07.2025.
9. It would be evident from the impugned order that the learned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants,
thereby confirming the Award of the Vidyut Ombudsman. However,
the learned Single Judge did not afford the appellants/writ
petitioners an opportunity to issue fresh bills under the changed
category after notice to the respondent No.2/consumer.
10. Both the orders dated 08.02.2013 and 14.03.2013 relied upon
by learned counsel for the respondent No.2/consumer contain a
requirement that the appellants (TGSSPDCL) shall issue notice to the
consumer in the event of any change of category. Since the learned
Single Judge relied upon these two orders, the appellants/writ
petitioners should also have been given liberty to issue a fresh notice
to the respondent No.2/consumer before raising bills under the
changed category.
11. We hence deem it fit to dispose of the Appeal by granting liberty
to the appellants to issue fresh notice to the respondent
No.2/consumer before raising bills under the changed category. The
fresh notice shall be issued to the consumer within two weeks from
today. Any steps taken by the appellants in revising the electricity
charges of the respondent No.2/consumer shall be subject to the
consumer being afforded an effective opportunity to respond to the
fresh notice issued in that regard.
12. W.A.No.1319 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is
accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. There shall be no
order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 25.11.2025
va
