Telangana High Court
M/S. Vodafone Idea Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 7 May, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.15008 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of respondent No.1,
Sri P.Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2 and Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to
5.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as
under:
“…to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in passing the
Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/
SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/ D.No.655/ 24-25, dated
14.02.2025 and Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO-
HT/HBG 1467/ D.No.51, dated 02.05.2025 which was
received on 05.05.2025 issued by Respondent No.4 as
per the common order passed by the Respondent No.2
in O.P.16 of 2005 and batch dated 30.08.2024 re-
determining the Cross Subsidy Surcharge CSS
purported to be exercising powers under Sections
39(2)(d)(ii), 40 (c)(ii) and 42(2) of the Electricity Act,
2003 (Act 2003) for the FY 2005-06 to FY 2014-15 to
be recovered from the consumers who availed power
supply through open access as arbitrary illegal
contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003,
Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission
Conduct of Business Regulation 2015 more particularly
2Regulation No.2 of 2015 and in violation of principles
of natural justice besides being violative of the
petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14,
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India consequently set
aside the Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/
OP/ HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO-HT/HBG 467/ D.No.51, dated
02.05.2025 which was received on 05.05.2025 and
Lr.No. SE/ OP/ HBG/ SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/
D.No.655/2425, dated 14.02.2025 issued by
Respondent No.4.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments
made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Respondent
No.4 issued the Impugned Demand Notice vide Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/
SAO/ AAO-HT/ JAO/ HT/ D.No.655/ 24-25, dated 14.02.2025
calling upon the petitioner to pay the Cross subsidy surcharge
amount of Rs.1,16,08,030.00/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs
Eight thousand thirty only) within 15 days from the date of issue of
the said demand notice. It was further stipulated in the said notice
that failure on the part of the petitioner to do so within the
stipulated period would lead to raising of the said Cross subsidy
surcharges in the regular C.C Charge bills as per the rules in voque,
without any further notice and the subject service will be ordered
for disconnection.
3
It is further the case of the petitioner that in response to the
said impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025, the petitioner vide
detailed representation, dated 22.04.2025 addressed to the
Superintending Engineer, Operation(Circle), Habsiguda, TGSPDCL
requested for review of the impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025
explaining very clearly vide the said letter that as per the
agreement existing between the power generation company with
the petitioner company, the Cross -Subsidy Surcharge or any other
charges, if any shall be paid by the power generation company
alone and the petitioner company is not liable to pay any charges
other than the cost of the power, and therefore, the impugned
demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 needs to be revoked with
immediate effect and the same needs to be withdrawn with
immediate effect duly reviewing the impugned demand notice,
dated 14.02.2025.
It is further the specific case of the petitioner that in
spite of petitioner’s detailed representation, dated 22.04.2025
submitted by the petitioner in response to the impugned demand
notice, dated 14.02.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation
Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL addressed to the said Authority,
curiously without considering the same, the impugned proceedings,
dated 02.05.2025 had been issued to the petitioner informing the
petitioner that the petitioner is liable to pay the charges determined
4by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time as
per the HT Agreement, clause No.8, dated 20.10.2019 and further
the petitioner was called upon to clear the notices issued against
CSS or make necessary arrangements for payments. Aggrieved by
the same, petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ
Petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-
A. The relevant portion of the impugned notice
Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO-HT/JAO/HT/D.No.655, dated
14.02.2025 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle,
Habsiguda, TGSPDCL issued to the petitioner is extracted
hereunder:-
“…Hence SC NO HBG1467 (RRE1467) M/s.Vodafon
Idea Limited is liable to pay the Cross Subsidy
Surcharge amount of Rs.1,16,08030.00 (Rupees One
Crore Sixteen Lakhs Eight Thousand Thirty Only)
within (15) fifteen days from the date of issue of this
demand notice. Further, it is to inform that, in case of
any doubts/clarifications it is requested to approach
this office during office hours along with relevant
records (i.e., agreement copies of captive power,
third party if any) of reconciliation. Failure to do so
within the stipulated period, the said Cross
Subsidy Surcharges will be raised in the regular
C.C charge Bills as per rules in vogue, without
any further notice and service will be ordered for
disconnection.”
B. The proceedings Lr.No.SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO/JAO-
HT/HBG 1467/D.NO.51, dated 02.05.2025 of the
Superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsiguda Circle,
5
TGSPDCL, Hyderabad issued to the petitioner after due
consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated
22.04.2025 is extracted hereunder:-
…”1. There is no captive power consumption
agreement between M/s.SKJ Power Projects Limited
and M/s.Vodafone Essar South Ltd.
2. M/s.Vodafone Idea Limited – HBG1467 is liable to
pay the charges determined by state electricity
regulatory commission from time to time as per the HT
agreement, clause No.8, dated 28.10.2019.
3. As seen from the power purchase agreement
copy enclosed in reference 2nd cited, M/s. SKJ
Power Projects Limited indemnifies the consumer
(M/s.Vodafone Idea Limited) against any charges
(including CSS) levied by the distribution
companies related to third party sale. Hence, the
notices issued against CSS may be cleared or
make necessary arrangements for payments.”
DISCUSSION AND CONLCUSION:-
DISCUSSION:-
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
mainly puts-forth the following submissions:-
i) The impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 and the
consequential proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 of the
Superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsiguda Circle,
TGSPDCL, Hyderabad issued to the petitioner are illegal, in
violation of principles of natural justice and are orders
passed in a routine manner without duly examining the
6terms of the power purchase agreement since a bare
perusal of the said terms would indicate that the liability
for the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge rests with the power
generating company as per the agreement’s terms.
ii) The superintending Engineer, Operation/Habsiguda circle,
TGSPDCL, Hyderabad failed to consider the detailed
representation furnished by the petitioner, dated
22.04.2025 in response to the impugned notice of demand,
dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the said
Authority and mechanically rejected the petitioner’s
request for revoking the impugned notice of demand,
dated 14.02.2025 vide the impugned proceedings, dated
02.05.2025, without application of mind, in a routine
manner, contrary to the terms of the power purchase
agreement existing between the power generation
company and the petitioner’s company and the same was
illegal and liable to be set-aside.
iii) The impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 and the
impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 of the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL issued to the petitioner are in clear violation of
principles of natural justice since the petitioner had not
7
been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and
hence, liable to be set-aside.
iv) The impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 needs to be
set-aside and the matter remitted to the Authority
concerned for reconsideration of the subject issue afresh
by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the
petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the
present Writ Petition.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein mainly puts-forth the
following submissions:-
i) The petitioner is not entitled for grant of the relief as prayed
for in the present Writ Petition.
ii) There is no illegality in issuing the impugned demand
notice, dated 14.02.2025 and the impugned proceedings, dated
02.05.2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation,
Habsiguda Circle, TGSPDCL, rejecting petitioner’s representation,
dated 22.04.2025, seeking revocation of the impugned demand
made vide impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025.
8
iii) In view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner as
put-forth vide petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025 had
been considered and proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been
issued, there cannot be any further consideration of the subject
issue by the respondent company.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5
contends that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in
limini.
CONCLUSION:-
7. It is specific case of the petitioner that in response to the
impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the
petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle,
Habsiguda, TGSPDCL, the petitioner vide detailed representation,
dated 22.04.2025 addressed to the said Authority requested for
review of the impugned notice, dated 14.02.2025 and to withdraw
the same with immediate effect and further requested to schedule a
meeting to resolve the subject issue amicably.
8. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that the contents of
the petitioner’s detailed representation addressed to the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL
9
had not been considered in a proper perspective duly examining the
terms of agreement entered into between the power generation
company and the petitioner company and without providing an
opportunity of personal hearing mechanically in a routine manner
the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 had been issued by
the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda, TGSPDCL
reiterating that the petitioner company is liable to pay the amounts
as per the impugned demand notice, dated 14.02.2025 issued to
the petitioner.
9. Duly considering the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was
denied an opportunity of personal hearing prior to issuance
of the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 and upon
the specific query of this Court pertaining to the said issue,
the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent company in reply to the said query does not
dispute the fact that the petitioner had not been provided an
opportunity of personal hearing prior to issuing the
impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 by the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL.
10
10. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not been
provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and in view
of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner vide his
representation, dated 22.04.2025 addressed to the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL requested to schedule a meeting to resolve the
subject issue and the same however had not been
considered and the petitioner had not been provided with an
opportunity of personal hearing prior to considering
petitioner’s representation, dated 22.04.2025 and prior to
issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 02.05.2025 by the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL, Hyderabad, this Court opines that the subject
issue needs reconsideration by the concerned Authority in
accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural
justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner.
11. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 and The learned standing counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 do not
dispute the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner for providing an
11
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and for
reconsideration of petitioner’s representation, dated
22.04.2025 in accordance to law
12. Taking into consideration:-
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2 and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
c) The contents of the impugned notice of demand,
dated 14.02.2025 issued by the Superintending
Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL
addressed to the petitioner (referred to and extracted
above)
d) The contents of the representation dated 22.04.2025
of the petitioner addressed to the Superintending
Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda, TGSPDCL.
e) The contents of the impugned proceedings, dated
02.05.2025 issued to the petitioner by the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL rejecting petitioner’s request for withdrawing
12the impugned notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025
issued to the petitioner (referred to and extracted
above).
The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL to reconsider the representation submitted by the
petitioner dated 22.04.2025, in response to the impugned
notice of demand, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner
by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL, and also its decision made vide the impugned
proceedings, dated 02.05.2025, in accordance to law, in
conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a
period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order and communicate the decision on the subject
issue to the petitioner.
Till the exercise as indicated as above is initiated and
concluded by passing of appropriate orders by the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL duly reconsidering the petitioner’s representation,
dated 22.04.2025, as per the specific directions as issued as
above within the time period as stipulated as above, the
13
respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps
against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned demand
notice, dated 14.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the
Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle/Habsiguda,
TGSPDCL However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
07.05.2025
Note:Issue CC by today
b/o
pld