Telangana High Court
WP/1184/2024 of Bharat Dynamics Limited Vs The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TS, TRANSCO) on 21 January 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 33461 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 1184OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 33461
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33461 OF 2023
AND
WRIT PETITION NO: 1184OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO: 33461 OF 2023
AND
Between:
Bharat Dynamics Limited, (a Government of lndia. Enterprise), Milistry of Defence, ilhanur-502305, Sangareddy District, Rep. by its Executive Director
...PETITIONER
The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, (TS' TRANSCO)' Rep.
by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Khairatabad
Hyderabad-500082.
The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, (TSSPDCL)
rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, (TSSPDCL) Sangareddy'
Sangareddy District
The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited' Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director.
M/s. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., (APGPCL), A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Hqvin_g. its registered office. at 4201'My Home Sarovar Plazb Near Secreatariat Saifabad Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Managing Director
Petition under Article 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing Lr.No SE/OP/SGR/SAO/AAO(HTyJAo (HTyD.N0 .35212021, Dt.3Ot 1 1 t2O21 issued bv the Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of
E
Between:
Bharat Erynamics Limited, (a Government of lndia Enterprise), Ministry of Defence, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Additional General Manager, the Constitution of lndia apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequertly set aside the same.
suspend the Lr No SE/OP/SGR/AAO(HTyJAO/(HTyD/NO 35212021 Dt.
3011112021 issued by the Respondent No 3 pending disposal of the main writ petition in the irrterest of justice.
Counsel for thr: Petitioner: SRI L.N.R.RAJESHWER RAO
Counsel for thr: Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 1184OF 2024
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Trarrsmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TS, TRANSCO), Rep.
by its ()hairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Khairatabad,
2. The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), Rep. By its Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle South (TSSPDCL)
Hyderabad.
4. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada Rep., by its Chairman Et Managing Director.
5. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., (APGPCL), A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at 4201 My Home Sarovar Plaza Near Secretariat Saifabad Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manalling Director.
Petition rrnder Article 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Lr.No.
SE/OP/HYD(SouthySAO/JAO/(HT)/D.No.192121-22, Ot.20-11.2021 issued bv the Respondent No.3 as highly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article t 4
of the Constitution of lndia apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Lr.No. SE/OP/HYD / (South)/SAO/JAO/
(HTyD. NO.192121 -22, Dt.20.'l 1 .2021.
suspend the Lr.No. SE/OP/HYD(South)/SAO/JAO/(HT)/D.No.192121-22'
Dt.20.11.2021 issued by the Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
1. The
(TSS
AND
Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co.rypgny PDCL); Rep. By its Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hydera Limited bad.
South (TSSPDCL)
...PETITIONERS
2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle Hyderabad.
Bharat Dynamics Limited, (a Government of lndia Enterprise), .Ministry of Defence, kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Additional General Manager, The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TS, TRANSCO)' Rep.
by its Chairman anil Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Khairatabad,
Hyderabad-500082.
The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limite-d, Vidyut Soudha'
Gunadala, Vijayawada Rep., by its Chairman Et lvlanaging Director.
tvl/s. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., (APGPCL), A Company incoroorated under the Companies Act, '1956 Having its registered office at 4201'My Home Sarovar Plazb Near Secretariat Saifabad Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director.
vacate the interim orders dated 12.01 .2024 in WP. No.1184 0t 2024 and dismiss the writ petition.
Counsel for ther Petitioner: SRI L.N.R.RAJESHWER RAO
Counsel for ther Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
o-\c'l
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE F'OR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A
WRIT PETITION No. 33461 OF 2O23
AND
184 0F
2L.OL.20/26
Between:
Bharat Dynamics Limited
(A Govt. of India Enterprise),
Ministry of Defence,
Rep. by its Executive Director
..... Petitioner
And
The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, & others.
Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri L.N.R.Rajeshwar Rao, learnect counsel for petitioner as well as Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL.
2. Thcse writ Peti.tions are filed impugning the letters dated 30.11 .2021and 2O. ll.2o21 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle (TSSPDCL) demanding the differential wheeling charges and interest thereon, on the ener5r consumed by petitioner from private generating cornpanies, purport,ld to be basing on the tariff orders issued by the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) for the FY 2OO2-O3 on'uvards, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. In similar circumstances, while dealing with Writ Petitions; No. 34344 of 2021 and batch, this Court passed a detailed order dated 24.09.2025, operative portion of which reads as under: the resr ect,". ".,::l ff:Hf --""o :"::T:T:".T:"ffiT :1 petitionr:rs regarding privity of contract, APERC in the order passed in OP No. 510 of 2001 had categorically held that there is no need for tripartitr: or multipartite agreements involving AP TRANSCO/DISCOMs and each wheeled consumer. More over, the judgments relied on by respond,-'nt in Trimex International FZB Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Supremt: Court held that acceptance of contractual terms may be either express or implied and binding contract may arise from the conduct of the part:es. In O/VGC Ltd (2022 f9, SCC 596), the Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmt:d that even non-signatories may be bound by contractual terms if they hir.ve derived benefit or participate in performance of the contract. In view ,rf the above, petitioners' contention that there is no privity of contract betrveen them and the DISCOM, hence the demand notices shall be set aside, is rejected. The contention that demand notices are time-bar::ed under Section 56(2) of the Act has no legs to stand as the order of ,\PERC has been upheld by the Hon'lole Supreme Court only on 29.11.2019 and the demand notices were issued in 2O0O and 2001. In any everrt, the Honble Supreme Court in Rahm,afrillah's case interpretr:d Section 56(2) of the Act. Hence this Court holds that demand notices a::e not barred by limitation. Further, petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands as they have suppressed the agreement between them and the ,, ,,..r.., ( , generators which has not seen the light of the day. Even when this Court asked learned counsel for petitioners to produce the copy of the agreement, they have not done so far. Petitioners have not I-rled any rejoinders rebutting the contents of counter affidavit that petitioners were being billed the wheeling charges all these years, hence the difference of the wheeling charges as adjudicated by the APERC shall also be paid by petitioners only. Petitioners have raised several questions of fact tvhich cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly, dismissed. No costs". ln view of the said order, these Writ Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
To, BSR GJP any shall stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA ISTANT //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER
1. One CC to SRI L.N.R.RAJESHWER RAO, loPUCl
2. One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL IQPUCI
3. :Two CD Copies i
HIGH COURT DATED: 2'110112026
COMMON ORDER
.Nos.3,3461 of 2023 & 1184 of 2024 -t DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS (, t 2? aL