WP/19268/2016 of M/s. GVK Gautami Power Limited Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh on 9 June 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 19268 OF 2016 Between: AND M/s. GVK Gautami Power Limited, Sy. No.43 and 44, plot no 43,54,57 and 58' 4th floor Mahaveer Radiance, Pillar number 1708, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana, lndia 500081 Represented by it's Director Mr' Sunil Kumar Saraf Address of Petitioner no.1 is amended as per C.O.dt.15'09'2025 in lA No.1/2025. ...PETITIONER

Southern Power Distribution company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited, besides Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupathi - 517501 Represented by its chairman and Managing Director, (hereinafter referred to as APSPDCL) EasternPowerDistributionCompanyofAndhraPradesh,Limited,P&T Colony, Seethammadhara, Vishakhapatnam - 530020 Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, (hereinafter referred to as APEPDCL) Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd, 6-1-50, Vidyut Saudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Represented by its Chairman and Managrng Director, Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Having its registered Office at H. No. '1-'1-503 and 504, Opp NIT Petrol Pump' Chiaitanyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 004 Represented by its Chairmjn and Managing Director, (hereinafter referred to as TSNPDCL) Telangana State Transmission Corporation Ltd, (TSTRANSCO) Vidyut Saudh]a, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission corporation of Andhra Pradesh(APTRANSCO), Vidyut saudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,

J

E b

T,AndhraPradeshPowerCoordinationCommittee(APPCC),VidyutSaudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, B Telangana State Power Coordination Committee' Vidyut Suadha' Khairatabad, Hyderabad (TSPCC) Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arltcle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ. direction oT order especially in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring that the inaction of the Respondents 'l to 4 in reimbursing the amount of. Rs.24,28,91 ,324t- i e.ihe Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) paid by the Petitioner to the lncome tax Department for the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-l1 and the interest occurred on the amounts paid towards MAT, in accordance with the order passed by the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory commission on 12-8-2013 in o P.No.2.1 ol 2013 which has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the Hon,ble supreme court on 24-11-2015 in civil Appeal No.3006 of 2015 and requested by the Petitioner to he paid by letter dated 31-12-2015 as being illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and violative of the order passed by the Hon',ble supreme court and, consequen y, directing the Respondents to make payment of the amount directed to be paid in the order dated 21-8-2013 passed by the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P No.21 of 2013 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 {wPMP. NO: 23628 0F 2016 Petition under section '15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the Respondents to secure 50 % of the amount payable by way of a bank guarantee and to pay the remaining 50% amount with immediate effect.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AVINASH DESAI SR. COUNSEL ASSISTED BY SRI CH. PUSHYAM KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,6&7: SRI VIKRAM POOSARLA SR. COUNSEL ASSISTED BY SRI MALIPEDDI ABHINAY REDDY, SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3,5&8: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TS TRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR TSNPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER

ORPER: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 19268 OF 2016 09.06.2026 Between: M/s CIVK Gautami Power Limited Petitioner And Southern Pou'er Disl.ribution Co. of AP Ltd & othcrs .. .. Respondents Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted b1 Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned. counsel for petitioner, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on behall of Responclents 3, 5 and 8, Sri Vikram Poosarla, learned Scnior Counsel assisted by Sri M. Abhinay Reddy learned counsel on behalf of Rcspondents 1, 2, 6 ar'd 7 and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.4.

2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Acr, engaged in the business of generation and sale of electrical energ.. It is stated, on 31.03. 1997, petitioner and ersr',t'hile A.P. State Electricity Board (ApSEB) have entered into a Por"t.er Purchase Agreement (ppA). After unbundling of A. p.

State Electricity Board, pursuant to Electricity Reforms Act, AP TRANSCO (the 6trr Respondent) succeeded to the contractual rights and obligations of APSEB. As per PPA, respondents are bound to reimburse all taxes levied on the income of petitioner, which, according to petitioner, includes M'A'T paid during subsistence of P.P.A.

2.1. It is further stated, as the 66 respondent did not reimburse the M.A.T paid by petitioner, the latter was constrained to approach the AP Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) by filing O.P. No' 2l of 2073' The said Commission, by Order dated, 12.8.2013, allowed the claim and directed respondents to reimburse the M'A T' payments made by petitioner along with interest, in terms of P'P'A' As against the same, the 6fr respondent preferred Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APIEL) uide Appeal No' 15 of 2014 which was dismissed. Against the same, Respondents frled C.A. No. 30O6 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which alsostooddismissedon24.ll.20l5'Itistherefore,contended by learned Senior Counsel that in view of the order of A'P'E'R C' dt.12.08.2013 becoming final, on account of dismissal of C A' No. 30O6 of 2O15 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court' the order of the A.P.E.R.C. shall be complied with by Respondents by reimbursing M.A.T. payment along with interest J

2.2. It is lurther stated that pending the above Writ Petition, Insoh,cncv proceedings were initiated against petitioner by Edelu'eiss Asset Reconstruction Company uide C.P. (L.8.) No. 391l7 IHBD 12022 belore National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT admitted the petition and ordered initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against petitioner herein.'lhe Resolution PIan submitted by R.S.P.L. was approved by N.C.L.T. on 06.011.2025 and R.S.P.L. acquired petitioner herein. therefore, I.A. No. I of 2025 was filed seeking permission of this Court to amend the cause title thereby substituting the new managemenl to represent petitioner. The said I.A. was allowcd on 15.O9.2O25. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that in view of the facts stated above, petitioner is entitled for reimbursemt:nt of M.A.T. amounts paid by them along with interest in tune with the orders passed by A.P.E.R.C. as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and as respondents have not complied n,ith thc said directions, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3, 5 & 8, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddlr filed a detailed counter and has taken a prcliminary objection that this Writ Petition is filed for execlltion of thc order of A.P.E.R.C., hence, it is not maintninable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended, petitioncr is a gas-based power generation project located in Peddapuram of East Godavari District' in the State of Andhra Pradesh. P.P.A. was entered into on 13'03' 1997 by petitioner with A.P.S.E.B, pursuant to which' petitioner started itscommercialoperationsandsuppliedgeneratedpowerfrom 15.06.2009 onwards till 1O'02'2013' Thereafter' petitioner became defunct in view of lack of supply of gas to it and there were no commercia-I operations from 1O'O2'2O13 It is stated' P.P.A. was valid for 15 years w'e f 15'6 2009 (date of commission) and as per clauses of P'P'A ' AP DISCOMs used to issue open Letter of Credit (L'C ) with validity of one year' from time to time. The Letter of Credit was issued for Rs 18'82 crores on 16.12.2012, vaJid' up to 15 12'2013' with maximum drawl limitofRs.go.33Crorespermonthi.e.dependinguponthe preceding year's average monthly bills It is stated that due to scarcity of gas, petitioner could not generate power and achieve the normal Plant Load Factor (P'L'F') of 8O% of its capacity' but however, petitioner was generating bills at the normal P'L F' of 80%o,eventhoughitwasnotproducingpowertothesaid capacity. It is stated that petitioner achieved only 13'35% of P.L.F. from lO.l2'2O12 to 1O'01'2013 arrd 9 '44o/o P L'F' from 10.01.2013 to 1O.O2'2O13 and thereafter' the plant was shut downduetolackofrawmateriali.e.gas.Therefore'thecapacity charges claimed by the generator/ petitioner were restricted only to actual generatecl enerS' and accordingly' payments were made

3. 1. lt is stated that aggrieved by the same' petitioner hled O.P. No. E of 20 lil before A P'E R C' along with I A No' 1 of 20 13 for interim order' The sairl I A was dismissed by A.P.E.R.C as against u'hich petitioner frled Appeal No' 101 and l02of20l3beforeAPTEL.TheAPTELwaspleasedtodisposeof the appeals bv order dated 28'05'2O 13' directing the APERC to dispose of the main petition expeditiously' i'e' within a period of three months. In the meantime, due to bifurcation of composite State o[ Andhra Pradesh into State of Telangana and residuary State ol Andhra Pradesh, and formation of separate Electricity Regulatory Commissions in each of the States' O P No' 8 of 201 3 was transferred from A'P E R C' to C E'R'C' (Central Electricity Regulatory Commission)' Even though there was no generalion actlvity trom lL O2'2O13 onwards' petitioner was sti1l raising its invotces on the erstwhiie DISCOMs based on its 80% P.L.F-. As the DISCOMs did not admit the said invoices' petilioner presented the same before State Bank of Hyderabad' Gunfoundry Branch, Hyderabad and encashed the Letter of Credit issued b1' DISCOMS

3. '2. It is s@ted, AP DISCOMs filed OS No' 444 of 2O13 along r,"'ith Interlocutory Applications before the City Civii Court'

Hyderabad for grant of injunction restraining the generator/ petitioner from invoking the Letter of Credit and also against Bank directing not to honour the illegal claims made by petitioner. The City Civil Court dismissed the I'As' as against which DISCOMs hled C.M'A' No 865 of 2O13 before this Court' which also stood dismissed. The DISCOMs frled a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman against the Banker for releasing the Letter of Credit' The Ombudsman' by its Ietter dated 3O.5.2016, informed that the Banker has acted as per the terms of the L'C. and the matter has been treated as sufhciently dealtandclosed.Petitioner,takingadvantageofavailabilityof Letter of Credit has encashed to a tune of Rs' 276'24 crores at different spells from 13.03.2013 to 17 '12 2013 during the PY 2Ol2-13 arrd.2OL3-14.It is stated that apart from the amount of Rs. 276.24 crores, petitioner is also iiable to pay true up arrears of Rs. 74.33 crores as per the terms of P P'A'

3.3. It is stated that AP DISCOMs have fiied O'P' No 12 of 2016 before A.P.E.R.C. seeking refund of Rs' 350'57 crores i.e. towards principal amount of LC encashed' true up arrears and Rs. 86.73 crores towards interest accrued till 10 3'2016 and future interest @ lSyo per annum till realization of the amount. In the meantime, petitioner filed O'P No' 21 of 2013 before A.P.E.R.C. for reimbursement of M'A'T and A'P E'R'C'

allowed the said clarm The order in O P No 12 of 2016 was affirmed by APTEL bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C'A' No' 3006 ot 2015. lt is further stated that O P No 12 of 2016 hled Central EiectricitY in tune with the . 15848 of 2015 and this Court directed b1, AP DISCOMS was Regulatory Commission directions of this Court in Writ Petition No transferred to on 19.01.2019 batch rvherein the Division Bench of A.P.E.R.C. ar-rd T.G.E'R C' to transfer ai1 the pending cases on the subject matter to C E R C' for adjudication in view of bifurcation of composite State of Andhra Pradesh into State of Telangana and residuary State of Andhra Pradesh' g.4 Learned Standing Counsel contends that as the O.P. filed by DISCOMs for recovery of amounts' illegaily encashed by petitioner, is pending adjudication before C'E'R C u,hich has no\ r mounted to Rs 1109'38 crores (as on to be refunded, 30.09.2025), even if MAT' charges respondents themselves need to recover more than Rs' 1 100 crores from petitioner' Detailed computation of amount by way of a statement was enclosed along with the counter affidavit' It is contended bv learned Standing Counsel that this Court in a u'rit petition filed under Article 226' is not the forum' for execution of order passed by the subordinate tribunals' more so bv A.P.tr.R.C. It is also contended that accepting w'ithout are conceding that a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable,thisCourtlacssterritorialjurisdictiontoentertain the present Writ Petition as all the issues involved pertain to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is also further contended that in view of N.C.L.T. approving the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (C.I.R.P.) submitted by M/s Radha Smelters arld others' by treating the petitioner as an ongoing concern' even if Respondents succeed before C.E R'C, they would not be able to recover any amount in view of clean-slate principle' It is further contended that Resolution Applicants i e' Radha Smelters and Vasavi Realty have submitted the plan which has been approved by N.C.L.T. treating petitioner as an ongoing concern' which is nothing but a legal fraud played on N'C'L'T' by petitioner' It is further contended that petitioner became defunct arrd there was no power generation from ll 'O2 '2013 onwards and the Company was not in operation due to lack of raw material for more than 12 years, therefore, N'C'L'T' approving the Resolution Plan and treating petitioner as an ongoing concern is a fraud played on N.C.L.T. The Company which has purchased petitioner have done so only for the purpose of landed property of petitioner, the value of which has raised multi-fo1d and to make prolits by sale of land in real estate' Even as on date'

I there is no gas to be supplied to petitioner industry for its revival 3.5 It is contended that I.B.C. Act has been enacted by Parliament for revival of sick industries by new an Act of cntrepreneurs / comp:rn ies / investors so that industrial activity would go on. therebv industrial growth and employment could be achieved which g'ould benefit the economy of the country' But fraud is played by the present management of the petitioner only to get many incentives under I'B' Code and therefore pral'ed to dismiss the n'rit petition.

4. Sri Vikram Poosarla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Shri M.Abhinay Reddy, learned counsel for Reslrondents 1, 2, 6 and 7 has, apart from raising the prelirninary objection on maintainability of the writ petition' concurred and sailed with the arguments of learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3, 5 and 8 and further added that powt:r under Art. 226 of Constitution is discretionary in nature and the High Court shall exercise self-imposed restraints especially when there is an efhcacious alternative remedy to the parly approaching the Court. He further contended that Writ Pctition undcr Article cannot be filed solely for implementation of Commission's order dated 12 08.2013 and it is left open to pctitioner to approach the Commission itself for execution of such an order. He further contended that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to agitate the present Writ Petition and it is the High Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh where the entire cause of action has arisen, which is competent to a judicate the issue and further contends that the project of the petitioner is situated in Peddapuram in Kakinada District, which is within the territorial limits of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Power Purchase Agreement was executed with respondent authorities operating in Andhra Pradesh State ald all transactions and cause of action in relation to the project have arisen w.ithin the State of Andhra Pradesh' Moreover, the order which is now sought to be executed is also passed by A.P.E.R.C. In view of all these issues, it is contended that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the uT it petition'

5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has replied to the arguments of respondents by stating that petitioner has no other forum to approach but this Court under Article 226' He states that there is no power with A.P.E.R.C for execution of an order and the powers under Sections 142 and 146 of Electricity Act are restricted to punish defaulters for non-compliance of the orders passed by A.P'E'R'C and therefore' there are no executable remedies for actual recovery of dues of petitioner' Hence, it is contended, the Writ Petition is maintainable'

Learnecl Senior Counsel further states that writ petition was filed in 2O t6 and '"r.as pending for the last 9 years and respondents have never raised any question as to maintainability of Writ Pctition for all these years; therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise the said plea at this stage. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgd Enterprlses htt. Ltd. u. Prtnclpal Secretary, GotErflment of U,P,I and in Dr. Bal Kisltan Agarwal as State oJ It.P.2. It is contended that the order of A.P.E.R.C. was confirmed by APTEL; thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; tht:refore, as per the judgment of Calcutta High Coorl Bibekanandrr Mondal u. Stdte of West Bengals, an act done in w'rllful disobcdience of Court order is not only contempt but also an illegal and invalid act; therefore, this Court, under hrLicle 226 of the Constitution of India has got very wide power to rcmedl. injustice wherever it is found.

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments. The prayer sought for by petitioner, seeking a drrercLion to Respondents 1to 4 to reimburse the Minimum Altcrnatt: Tax (MAT) amount paid by petitioner to Income Tax Departme nt for FY 2009- 10 and 20lO-11 i.e. Rs- 24,28,9 1,324 l- along with interest accrued thereon. in ' zoo+ 1ts1 scc 665 ' to9s1 t scc 614 ' 2002 S(:C Online Oalcutta 571

accordance with the order dated l2.a.2ol3 passed by the then A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P. No. 21 of 2013, as upheld by APTEL and Hon'bie Supreme Court, is in the nature of execution of an order passed by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. 7 . The point for consideration is whether this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution of India, can execute an order passed by A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P. No. 21 of 2O13 dated 12.08.2013.

8. This Court is convinced with the contention/ arguments of learned counsel for respondents that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition in view of the fact that petitioner project is located in Peddapuram of Kakinada District (Andhra Pradesh State) which is in the territorial limits of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This Court is also convinced with the contention of Respondents that Power Purchase Agreement was executed with the authorities operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that all the transactions and cause of action in relation to the project have arisen within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and also what is now sought to be executed in this Writ Petition is an order passed by A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. Therefore, it is to be held that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.

9. Secondly, petitioner approached this Court under Artrcle 226 of Constitution for execution of the order, by converting the sard proceedings into recovery/ execution proceedings, therefore, Writ of Mandamus, in the opinion of this Court, does not lie to entertain the prayer sought by petitioner. As rightly contended by learned counsel for Respondents, petitioner has got an efficacious remedy to approach the AP Elecrricily Rcgulatory Commission itself, as Electricity Act, 20O3 is a Code in itsclf. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Electricitg Distribution Compang Ltd. u. Maharashtra Electricitg Regulatory Commissiona and in S.Bhcrg at Kumar us Gouentment oJ Andhra Pradeshs held that the Reguiatory Commission constituted under the statute like Electricity Act have all the trappings of the Court and are substitute for civii court and such bodies have the power to execute their own orders. Therefcrre bypassing the said forum and invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is legally impermissible.

10. Yer another ground for refusing the prayer sought by petitioner is, pendcncy of O.P. No. 12 of 20O6 on the file of Central Electricitl' Regulatory Commission wherein respondents ' 1zo zz1 + scc 6s7 ' 2000 scc online AP 565

have sought for refund of certain amounts which were, in the opinion of respondents, illegally encashed by petitioner and even if petitioner is entitled for refund of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT), Respondents, in the event of their succeeding before C.E.R.C., would not be able to recover the said amount, in view of I.B.C. proceedings concluded before the N C.L'T. which have overriding effect over the Electricity laws.

11. This Court is also not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner that in view of long pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court, for nine years, Respondents cannot seek to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

12. {n,view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that it lacks territorial jurisdiction at the first instance and that execution of the order passed by a subordinate tribunal cannot be ordered in proceedings under writ jurisdiction. This Court is also satished that the Electricity Act empowers petitioner to seek the said remedy before A'P' Electricity Regulatory Commission. Hence, this Court does not find any merits to entertain the Writ Petition. 1 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,oO,OoO/- (Rupees one lac only) to be paid to respondents. -/

l5

14. This Court awestruck to note that respondents, whose case is pending before the CERC, have not made a claim with regard to the said amount before the NCLT where proceedings of petitioner under I.B.C. are pending. They have not even made an Application before the Insolvency Resolution Professional regarding their claim which is pending before the CERC].

15. 'I'he Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh and Tclangana TRANSCO Departments and all the DISCOMS are therefore, directed to probe into the issue as to who is responsible for not making the claim, which act resulted in heaq- loss the public exchequer.

16. Consequt:ntly, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS Rs. Ps Costs Quarrtified by Hon'ble Court (That the Petitioner herein and Counsel for the oetitioner are d irected to pay costs of ii.s 1,00.000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) in favour of the ResPondents. TOTAL 1,00,000-00 iFo,ooo-oo SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA A ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \/ Sri. GVK Gautami Power Llmrted Sy No.43 ,,['OO' 4th f loor Mahaveer Radiance, Pillar number 1708 SECTION OFFICER no.43,54,57 and 58, dhapur, Hyderabad, plot ,MA To, Telangana, lndia 500081 Represented by it's Director Mr. Sunil Kumar saraf

The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited, besides Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupathi - 517501 (hereinafter referred to as APSPDCL) The Chairman and Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited, P&T Colony, Seethammadhara, Vishakhapatnam

- 530020 (hereinafter referred to as APEPDCL) The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company ofTelangana Ltd., 6-1-50, Vidyut Saudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad The Chairman and Managing Director, Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Having its registered Office at H. No. '1-1-503 and 504, Opp NIT Petrol Pump. Chaitanyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 004 (hereinafter referred to as TSNPDCL) The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Transmission Corporation Ltd, (TSTRANSCO) Vidyut Saudha' Khairatabad, Hyderabad The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh(APTRANSCO), Vidyut Saudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad' The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee (APPCC), Vidyut Saudha, Khairatabad' Hyderabad. The Chairman and Managing Director,Telangana State Power Coordination Committee, Vidyut Suadha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad (TSPCC). One CC to SRI PUSHYAM KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI MALIPEDDI ABHINAY REDDY, SC FOR APSPDCL [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TRANSCO [OPUC] One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR TSNPDCL [OPUC] Two CD Copies

E

o '10

IJ

PMK BS l .fu

HIGH COURT DATED: 09/06/2026

ORDER

WP.No.19268 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS p{ 1Yl rF ' S14 t- t I c. lo 1'J 1 5 JU[l 2026 1 it ; '! :- /, \..

- n,./,'' '" _./ ) I re\aLu