WP/9953/2024 of The Superintending Engineer Vs Smt Meena Kumari on 22 January 2026

[ 33oo ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 9953 OF 2024 Between: '1. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Banjara Hills Circle, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), Banjara Hills Circle

2. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, Banjara Hills, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), Banjara Hills Circle

3. The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Banjara Hills, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), Banjara Hills Circle

4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Banjara Hills, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), Banjara Hills Circle ...PETITIONERS AND

S.mt firleena Kumari, W/o. Sri. C. Sudhakar,H No. 8-2-29318211874-4, (274-A) Behind Omega Hospital Sy NO 430/4 (old) 102/1 MLA Colony Road NO 12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad 34 Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Of Tsspdcl, (Greater Hyderabad Area) H. No. 8-3-167/E/1 ,Central Power Training lnstitute (CPTI) premises, GTS Colony, Vengal Rao Nagar, Erragada, Hyderabad -45 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records and to quash the orders dated 22.01 .2024 in CG. No. 22O ot 2023-24lBanjara Hills Circle, as arbitrary, illegal unjust and contrary to the law and facts ofthe case and to quash the same.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation the orders of the 2nd respondent 22.01 .2024 in CG. No. 220 of 2023- 24lBanlara Hills Circle. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDOY, (SC FOR TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I I I

-'. -1. ;r '- *'"9 .l Q3 wp-9953_2O24 NBK, J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TIII' STATE OF'I'tr,LANGANA .TI{E, HON'BT,E SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRI-r PETITION No.9953 of 2024 22'd Jzntary,2026 Betrveen: I . 1'he Superintendent fingineer, Operations, Banjara Hills Circle, TGSPDCL, and others ... Petitioners AND [. Smt. Meena Kumar, W/o C. Sudhakar and another ... Respondents ORI)IIR: For convenience of reference, the parties will be referred to as the Customer and TGSPDCL, respectively. 'lhe Customer/ I st Respondent is stated to be the owner of the premises bearing No. 8-2-293182/I'12741 A, Venkateshwara Cooperative Housing Society for Legislators (TAB-180), MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, and TGSPDCL has allotted Electricity Service Connection No. BJH2257. The premises was leased out to Omega Hospitals, and the lease period ended in February 2023.\t is stated that the tenant (i.e., Omega Hospitals) had availed an 80 KVA capacity electricity connection under the HT category. However, upon vacation ofthe premises by the tenant, as there i *

AT HYDERAtsAD i wp_9953-2024 NBK, J was no requirement for such a high electricity load, the Customer attempted to upload an application fbr deration from 80 KVA to 25 KVA under the LT category on the -ICSPDCL web portal. However, the web portal did not permit the uploading ol- the application and blocked the same, despite the Customer raising a gricvance. lhcrefbre, the Customer approached the Consumer (irievanccs Redressal Forum of TGSPDCL, seeking appropriate directions. The Forum, by the impugned order dated 22.01.2024, directed as follows: "ln the result the grievance complaint filed on 25.11.2023 by the ComplainanUConsumer is hereby allowed with the following directions to the Respondents/Licensee;

(i) The Respondents/Licensee are hereby directed to derate the Ioad from 80 KVA to 25KVA under HT category with effect from 25.12.2023 and revise the bills accordingly within (15) days from the date of receipt of this Order copy and shall file the compliance report along with the satisfactory letter of the Complainant / Consumer.

(ii) The Respondents are also directed to provide the option for uploading the application of deration of load less than 70 KVA under HT category in concerned all ICSC's/CSC's and Licensee web portal within (30) days from the date of receipt of this Order copy.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated22.01.2024 passed by the Consumer Forum, TCSPDCL fi|ed thc present writ petition, essentially contending that the quorum of the Consumer Forum comprises the Chairperson, Member (Tecbnical), Member (Finance), and an Independent Member. presently, the Member (Technicat) is officiating as Chairperson (FAC). Further, the Member (Finance) dissented from rhe opinion of the Member (Technical), wp 9953_2024 NBK, J and the Independent Member stated that he agrees with the view of the Hon'ble Members. It is therefore contended that the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 was not passed by a majority of the members of the quorum. Further, the Member (Technical), who is also functioning as Chairperson (FAC), exceeded her jurisdiction by passing the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 contrary to the provisions of the Elecficity Act, 2003, the GTCS, and the I'ariff Orders issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission. 2.1 It is also contended that the 2nd respondent-Forum erred in not appreciating,the fact that the TSERC has the sole power to frame regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003, and that if a consumer is aggrieved by any clauses of the GTCS or the -l'arit-f Orders, the consumer must approach TSERC by rnaking a representation. Upon the orders passed on such representation, the aggrieved party has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Electricity Tribunal under Section lll of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Fleard Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing lor the writ petitioners, and Mr. Ajay Kumar Kulakami, learned counsel for the lst respondent/customer. Perused the record.

4. When the matter was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioners contended that against the impugned order dated 22.01.2024, there is a statutory remedy of appeal before the Electricity Tribunal under Section I I I of the Electriciry Act, 2003, and therefore the petitioners may be relegated to avail the appellate remedy before the Electricitv Tribunal.

To, wp,99s 3_2024 N8K, ,

5. Considering the submissiorrs made, the writ petition is disposed of, Ieaving it open to the writ petitioners to avaiI the statutory remedy of appeal before the Electricity Tribunal under Section I I I of the Electricity Act, 2003, within a period of three u,eeks fiorn the date of receipt ol a copy of this order. I he tiure spent in pursuing this rvrit petition before this Court shall be excluded while calculatini: the limitation period, if any, for fiting the appeal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/.T.SRINI VASA REDDY ASSIST NT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Of Tss ln pd stitute Greater HYderabad (CPTI) Premtses' (

Area) H. No 8-3-1671E11 'Central Power Traintng da, HYde GTS ColonY, Vengal Rao Nagar, Erraga rabad -45 2 One CC to SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY' (SC FOR TRANSCO) IOPUCI

3. One CC to SRI AJ

4. Two CD CoPies' AY KUMAR KULKARNl, Advocate tOPUCl W BSK

HIGH COURT DATED:2210112026 t THE Slr ? 13 rr8 2026 *

ORDER

WP.No.9953 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS * b ^/( fl\' 4'.'b