WP/33531/2024 of M/S. Prathima Infrastructure Limited Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

Petitioner is stated to be a company r, L jch entered into al agreement dated 3O.O4.2O 18 with thr respondent distribution licensee for supply of electricit5r r r-rder HT-II category, bearing HT Service Connection No. BKI\[ l30, with a contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA at Odcirr Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagu r em District. The said supply was granted for establishing anrl operating a site ofhce and factory at the said location. Fronr the date of release of service connection, petitioner has l;,r n regularly paying all monthly power consumption bills without any default.

1 . 1. While so, responde nts, without observing the principles of natural justice, unilaterally changed the category of petitioner's service conncction lrom HT-II to HT-VII and retrospectively assessed consumption charges from the very date of release of supply, i.e.30.O4.2018. By proceedings dated 25.06.2019 of th€ 4th respondent and consequential power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6th respondent, back billing demand of Rs.34,61,400/- was raised against petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, they filed Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 20.O8.2019, granted interim suspension of operation of the impugned back billing demand, subject to petitioner depositing one-third of the demanded amount within the stipulated time. Petitioner strictly complied with the said interim order and deposited Rs.1,5,a7,772/- in trx,o instalments on 11.09.2O19, representing one-third of the demanded amount. The said interim order continues to be in force and Writ Petition is still pending adjudication.

1.2. It is further contended that subsequently, by letter dated O 1 .O7.2O2O, respondents themselves revised the earlier back billing assessment of Rs.34,61,4O0/ -and enhanced the same to Rs.47,63,316/-, stating that the earlier calculation was J incorrect. Even in respect of the revised dema;r l, petitioner complied with the interim directions of this Court r id paid one- third of the revised amount, aggregating to Rs.15 . \7 ,772 /-, by making payments of Rs. 1 I,53,800/- and Rs.4,3li )721 -; thus, it is asserted that petitioner has scrupulously e r hered to all interim directions of this Court. Except for the <l sputed back billing amounts, which are the subject matter ol vVrit Petition No.178O3 of 2019, petitioner has paid all the re,{ rtar monthly consumption charges raised by respondents vithout any arrears 1.3 Petitioner further contends that aj the project activities were nearing completion and the contra( t rd maximum demand of 750 KVA was no longer required, it addressed representation dated 1I.06.2022 to the 2"d respcr ttent seeking deration or reduction of contracted maximum denr Lr-rcl from 75O KVA to 300 KVA in respect of HT Service ConnecL cn No. BKM-

130. They were not utilising even 50%o of t r: sanctioned demand, as most of the project work had .lready been completed. Despite repeated representations , rldressed to Respondents 2 and 3, no favourable action was 'i ken; instead, by ietter dated 27.O8.2O2O, th,e 2"d responder. rejected the request for deration solely on the ground of pend,r l(ly of arrears arising out of the disputed back billing, and directed petitioner to clear the said arrears. Petitioner asserts that it was compelled to pay excessive monthly charges of about Rs.2,25,OOO/- towards the unused surplus load o[ 450 KVA, even though the actual utilisalion never exceeded 300 KVA. According to petitioner, denial of deration was not based on any valid or legal reason, but was a punitive measure adopted by respondents solely because they approached this Court and obtained interim protection against illegal back billing.

7.4. It is further pleaded that all construction and allied activities at the site were completed by March, 2O2l and that regular 22O / ll KV pou'er supply to the pump house was charged by the end of June, 2024. In these circumstances, petitioner addressed letter dated 29.06.2024 to the 2"d respondent seeking cancellation of HT service connection artd dismantling of HT SC No. BKM-130 at Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project, Package-S, Oddu Ramavaram Village, as the service was no longer required. When there was no response, another letter dated 27.08.2024 was addressed, reiterating the request for disconnection and dismantling and expressly undertaking to bear the expenditure involved in dismantling the service connection. \.

i I I

1.5. It is stated, despite these repr: ted requests, respondents did not take steps to disman. I . the seruice connection. The service was admittedly rli; ,rnn66.166 on 3O.O8.2O24; however, 33 KV sub_station constru : cd in the land belonging to farmers continued to remz j r in place. Consequently, petitioner addressed yet anoth,: letter dated 26.1O.2024 to the 2nd respondent. In responr;, thereto, the impugned proceedings dated 06. I I .2024, along i,ith back bill statement dated 01.O9.2024 was issued. Thotr;,l respondents admitted in the impugned proceedings that sen r :e connection was disconnected on 3O.Og.2O24, they directed p; itioner to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.43,g4,907. S0/_, inclusivt rf interest up to 06. 1 1 .2024, as a pre-condition for dismantlir r , 33 KV sub_ station which is directly traceable to the ver,, back billing proceedings u'hich are under suspension by virtut t[-the interim order dated 2O.O8.2O19 in Writ petition No.I t.r O3 of 2019. According to petitioner, this action of responden r ; amounts to wilful disobedience of the interim order of this Corr t. 1.6 Petitioner also alleges discrirr i rttion and arbitrariness inasmuch &S, rn respect of c her service connectlons of petitioner with the responcl( r t company, respondents granted relief of disconnection, derati: I of load and I i' ; dismantling even when back billing disputes were pending. In the present case alone, such relief is denied without aly justifiable reason, solely to coerce petitioner into paying amounts which are under judicial scrutiny. Once petitioner sought cancellation and dismantling of service connection, the 2"d respondent has no authority either under the Agreement dated 3O.O4.2O18, the trlectricit5r Act, 2OO3 or the applicable rules and regulations to extend the agreement or compel the petitioner to continue the HT service connection. The right of petitioner to seek cancellation and dismantling flows from the agreement itself, and there is no provision enabling the respondents to deny dismantling after completion of work and termination of contract, especially when the alleged arrears are stayed by this Court. It is hnally pleaded that Agreement between petitioner and respondents was only for one year from 30.04.2018, and in terms of Condition No.7 thereof, petitioner has terminated the Agreement. Upon such termination, the obligation of respondents is to dismantie the service connection, and the latter cannot compel petitioner to continue to bear charges towards contracted maximum demand and minimum charges.

2. By order dated 05.12.2024, this Ccr rt granted interim direction in favour of petitioners.

A detailed counter was filed by the 6' respondent stating that petitioner company obtained electrjci y supply by entering into an Agreement dated 30.04.20 18 spe c i ically for the purpose of construction activities, namely co r Pumping Station No.2 at Sita Rama Lift Irrig: Package No.5. The power supply was sanc- contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA under F' subject to the express condition that the petitione t by the General Terms and Conditions of Suppll' I orders issued by the Telangana State Electricit Commission from time to time. It is contende'l binding conditions under the General Terms and Supply is Clause 5.9.4.2, which governs deration maximum demand and termination of HT agreem. Clause specifically stipulates that a consum: reduction of contracted maximum demand or terrl HT agreement only after expiry of the minimum year by giving not less than one month's notice, I termination of HT Agreement, the consumer is [il sums due under the Agreement as on tJle date ol t struction of -ion Project, rned lor a ' Category II, '',vould abide nd the tariff . Reguiatory one of the londitions oI rl contracted rts. The said

- may seek nation of the >eriod of one rd that upon rle to pay all :rmination. It is further stated that the company is also empowered to terminate the Agreement in the event of violation of terms of the HT agreement, General Terms and Conditions of Supply or the applicable statutory provisions, including the Electricity Act, 2OO3 ar,d the AP Electricity Reforms Act, 1998.

3. 1. It is asserted, petitioner is a construction company and had applied for electricity connection specihcally for construction purposes. The supply was therefore, in the nature of temporary supply. The power supply was sanctioned under HT Category-Il initially as per the prevailing tariff for the financial year 2OI8-2O 19, and the demand for such temporary supply was raised from the date of release of supply, i.e., 3O.O4.2O18 to 07.06.2019. A demand notice in this regard was issued on 10.08.2019. Under the Agreement, particularly under Conditions 8 and 9 thereof, petitioner expressly agreed to pay maximum demand charges, energr charges, surcharges, meter rents and other charges in accordance with the tariffs applicable and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply prescribed by the company from time to time. Petitioner also agreed that the company has unilateral authority to vary tariffs, scales of charges and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply by special or general proceeding-s, and to enhan) chargeable for supply of electricity as per exigencier; 3.2. Respondents further submit that Tel,r Electricify Regulatory Commission, on the pro l distribution licensees, introduced a separate tzr consumers availing temporary'supply under HT v,> lrnarrcial year 2Ol8-2O19. According to responden t itself requested power supply for construction : therefore, the applicable tariff for temporary supply . be applied. The Divisional Engineer/DpE Kothagudem, inspected petitioner's service conne(:l SC No. BKM-130 on 07.06.2019 and noticed thrr utilising electricity for construction purposer, cons[ruction of canal tunnel works relating to Si.z Irrlgation Project. Based on the said inspection, it v., to convert the service category from HT Catego Category-Vll, in accordance with the tariff ,r

27. O3.2O8 issued by the Regulatory Commissi Ilnancial year 20 1B-2O 19.

3.3. Pursuant to the inspection, billing Category-Vll was proposed instead of HT Catego - period from the date of release of supply, i.e. 3C. r the rates rgana State rsal of the ilf rate for lage for the ; petitioner :tivit5r, and ,,as liable to Bhadradri ir>n bearing they were including Rama Lift s proposed y -II to HT cler dated rn for the under HT -II for the )4.2018 to

t0 07.06.2019, arrd an amount of Rs.34,61,40O/- was assessed uide proceedings dated ll .06.2019; the said amount was lawfully payable by petitioner in terms of the tariff order dated 27.03.2018 and Conditions 8 and 9 of the Agreemenr. As per CGRF instructions, a suitable reply was submitted and a copy was also communicated to petitioner. The same procedure of reclassihcation and back billing was uniformly adopted for all HT services throughout the State in terms of Clause 2.22 of the tariff order dated,27.O3.2O18 for the Iinancial year 2O 18- 19. It is asserted that Rs.34,61,4O0/- was calculated strictly on the basis of inspection and on the statement of petitioner's representative admitting that power was being used for construction purposes. Accordingly, revision of consumption charges with effect from the date of release of supply till 07 .06.2019 was justif-red.

3.4. Respondents further state that the category of petitioner's service was proposed strictly based on the lnspectron report assessment for the of DPE/ADE/OP and that notice of relevant period was issued after due inspection and a-fter recording the statement of the representative of petitioner company, who admitted that the power supply was being used for construction purposes. K

--.-...- 1l Respondents admit that petitioner Iiled Writ petiri of 2Ol9 challenging the change of category wherr: granted an interim order suspending the dema.r deposit of one-third of the amount. However, it that the said Writ Petition does not involve any iss;r disconnection or dismantiing of power supply. , respondents, petitioner is now seeking permanent of service connection without final a judication : demand, which is impermissible.

3.5. It is further contended that in.tr No. 178O3 of 2019, a counter affidavit and vacate were filed as early as on 04.09.2020, but petitioner filed reply nor made any effort to get the said , disposed of. Petitioner, being a construction conl temporary consumer, would leave the site upon ( ( construction, and if service connection and sul> dismantled at this stage, respondents would be left effective means to recover the legaily demanded an r are the subject matter of the above Writ petition. rn No. 17803 : this Court I subject to s contended r: relating to .r:cording to dismantling

- the earlier rit Petition tay petition has neither ,,rit petition rany and a mpletion of station are vithout any unts which

3.6. Considering petitioner's request for lismantling and the above circumstances, ttle 2"d respondent ca :ulated the total dues payable as Rs.67,61,3 lTl-, and, after d: lucting the K'

t2 security deposit of Rs.25,08,840/ -, issued the impugned proceedings dated 06. 1 1.2024 calling upon petitioner to pay Rs.43,84,907,50/ -. It is contended that petitioner's request for deration of load was rightly rejected by proceedings dated 27 .O8.2O2O, clearly stating that unless the outstanding arrears of about Rs.36.9O lakhs were cleared, the request for deration could not be considered. 3.7 . Respondents further contend that petitioner requested permanent dismantling of service on 05.11.2024 aftet completion of the project and without clearing substantial arrears of Rs.67,61,317 /-, after adjusting the security deposit. The procedure adopted by them is scrupulously in accordance with law and that even in the case of domestic (LT-l) connections, dismantling is permitted only when arrears are nil, as envisaged under Clause 5.9.4.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. It is emphatically submitted that petitioner obtained power supply on a temporary basis and that unless all sums due as on the date of termination of the agreement are paid, the HT service connection and the 33 KV sub-station cannot be dismantled. Respondents further rely upon the Conditions statutory character of the General Terms and of Supply and the tariff orders, contending that l3 reclassification and back biliing were carried rtrr strictly in accordance with Clause 3_4.1 and Clause 12.3 of Ct neral Terms and CondiLions of Supply, which expre; ;iy permit reclassification and retrospective billing in cases of misclassification or under-billing, subject to thr prescribed limits.

3.8. Respondents place reliance on the jud: lent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Electrtcitg Sr, oplg Co. of Orissa Ltd. o. Sri Seetaram Rice Millt, to r r ntend that unauthorised use of electricity and breach of terrr; of supply attract statutory consequences and that High Oo rrts should orclinarily refrain from interfering in assessment >roceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is als I placed on the decision in Hgderabad. Vanaspolthi Ltd. u. ,t P.SEB2, to emphasise that t.erms and conditions of supply are tatutory in nature and binding on the consumer.

3.9. On the aforesaid premises, responder [s contend that action taken by them is strictly in conformigr w . h statutory provisions, tariff orders and binding contractual terr rs; there is no violation of principles of natural justice and that 1 c.titioner is ' (2o t2) 2 scc l08 '] (1998) 4 scc 470

t4 atte mpting to evade payment of iegitimate dues gy filjng successive writ petitions. Respondents therefore, state that Writ Petition ls dismissed devoid of merit and the same is liable to be In the repiy filed, petitioner reiterates and reaffirms all the averments made in the writ affidavit and specifically denies the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit Petitioner while admitting execution of the Agreement, categorically denies respondents, assertion that the said Agreement was entered into for construction purposes. It is specifically contended that the power supply was obtained for at the Oddu Ramavaram work site, concrete through batching piants, fabrication of MS pipes and steel structures, which fal squarery under manufacturing activit5r and not construction. Having regard to the nature of activities, t-t_re service was rightly classihed under HT_II category initially; respondents are not entitled to treat the service connection as temporary, as the connection has been in existence continuously from 30.O4.2O1g for more than three years, and under the applicable tariff framework, the respondents cannot retrospectively treat it as manufacturing activities namely production of

--- t5 temporary supply nor 1e!y charges at rates temporary connections beyond the permissible peli

4. t. According to petitioner, respondents c Ciause 5.9.4.2 to demand payment of amounts ,r judice and recovery of which stands suspendr:r order. It is further asserted that all reg- consumption charges under HT-II category har without default, except the back biiling arnourr expressly covered by the interim stay. Petitiont: electricity for any construction work and th I consumption was confined to manufacturing act'r batching plants, fabrication units, welding machi: operations. It is pointed out that the respondent initially categorised the service under HT-ll afte r '' the nature of activity, and having done so, th.: officer could not have unilaterally changed the cz:r VII without notice or justihcation and su,) reclassification is contraqr to Condition No.2 of 1l dated 30.O4.2018 and violative of principles of nat_ is further contended that contractual terms ca r binding judicial orders and that the respondent; contrary amounts to disregard of the authority of t: qrplicable to rd. rnnot invoke hich are sub by judicial zlr monthly : been paid s which are never used . the entire il,ies, namely :s and allied ; themselves erihcation of subordinate :gory to HT- L unilateral e agreement :al justice. It not override plea to the s Court. I 8,.

t6

4.2. With reference to the inspection dated O7.O6.2019 relied upon by respondents, petitioner categorically denies the truth and correctness of the allegations contained therein. It is asserted that the said inspection was conducted without any prior notice and behind the back of the petitioner, ald therefore the inspection report is not binding. Petitioner denies that it was ever involved in construction of canal tunnels of the Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project and asserts that such allegations are baseless, unsupported by evidence and founded on a purported inspection report rvhich was neither preceded by notice nor foliowed by an opportunity of explalation. It is contended that demanding payment of the entire disputed amount for dismantling the sub-station, despite the subsisting stay order, is arbitrary, coercive and violative of the rule of law.

4.3. In reply to the apprehension expressed by the respondents that dismantling of the sub-station would render recovery of dues impossible, petitioner contends that such apprehension is r,r,'holly unfounded. It is asserted that the petitioner is an established and solvent company with several ongoing contracts with the respondent corporation itself, having a registered office and a proven track record of compliance with contractual obligations. A substantial security deposit of about G'7 l7 Rs.25,O0,000/ - is already lying with the reslr speculative apprehensions regarding recovery car basis for denial of a legitimate contractual and stzL dismantling, especially when the service stancll since 30.08.2O24. After disconnection of povr'( I continued existence of 33 KV sub-station senrr: except to impose an unjust financial burden , Petitioner is being compelled to pay minimum dt'r of Rs.3,75,000/- per month, in addition to rr aggregating to about Rs.4,28,O221 - per m,) consuming a single unit of electricity. The pressL land-owning farmers, on whose land the sub-stat ( has subjected petitioner to serious hardship , disputes.

4.4. Petitioner asserts that respondents dismantling on the ground of non-payment of dis: petitioner has undertaken to comply with whate", ultimately be passed by this Court in Writ Petiti( r 2019. It is reiterated that despite repeated r 29.06.2024, 27.O8.2O24 and 26.10.2024 te': contract and seeking dismantling, the respondel to act in accordance with the agreement. Peti ,ndents. The not form the utory right to disconnected supply, the no purpose n petitioner. .rand charges :ter charges, rth, without re exerted by n is situated, nd potential cannot deny .rted dues, as r orders may No.178O3 of .otices dated rinating the .s have failed ioner further &

t8 assails the inspection report dated ll.O6.2OLg relied upon by the respondents, contending that the said report does not disclose issuance of arry show cause notice prior to reclassihcation from HT-II to HT_VII. The report merely records an alleged conclusion that service was used for irrigation project purposes, without any evidence or reasoning. The petitioner reiterates that its original application dated 1g.O9.2017 clearly discloses the nature of work as batching plant, fabrication unit, welding machines and illumination systems for camps, and that the HT-II category was assigned only after due verification by the competent authoriqr.

4.5. Petitioner further points out inconsistencies in the respondents' stand regarding the date of inspection, contending that while the counter affidavit refers to inspection on 11.06.2019, the documents now produced show inspection on 07 .06.2019. It is asserted that the proceedings dated 11.06.2019 were prepared several days later and were purportedly served on an unnamed and unauthorised person, who was neither an employee nor an authorised representative of the petitioner. According to petitioner, no statement was given by any of its employees on the date of inspection and the report is a premeditated document intended to coerce payment of rt!--- excessive back billing. It is further contenc( inspection report does not record any con: supported by evidence and proceeds on mere pres l power was used for irrigation purposes, despl having no contract whatsoever with irrigation Petitioner reiterates that usage was purely for r.l activities and does not fall under temporary su[l category. The unilateral change of category anrl issue back billing without issuing a show car r affording an opportunity of hearing is asserted rt illegal and violative of principles of natural ju s aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that inspection ll.06.2019 and the consequential back billing rejected as illegai, arbitrary and unsustainable.

5. Heard Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learne: petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, lear: Counsel for respondents.

6. Having considered the material on recc seen, the issues raised in the present Writ inseparably interlinked with the subject matter of No. 17803 of 2Ol9, as the impugned demand fo: back billing arrears as a pre-condition for disrr I that the 'ete hnding nptions that e: petitioner <lepartment. rnufacturing ly or HT-VII direction to ;r: notice or be patently ice. On the -,-'port dated lemands be counsel for :d Standing rd, it is to be Petition are Writ Petition payment of lntling flows w- directly from the proceedings challenged in the said Writ Petition. It is an admitted position that petitioner was granted HT electricity supply under an Agreement dated 30.04.201g with a contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA. It is also not in dispute that service connection was originally categorised as HT-II after scrutiny of petitioner's application and verification of the nature of activity. The subsequent reclassification of service from HT-II to HT-VII and the consequential back billing were effected unilatera-lly by respondents on the basis of an inspection conducted in June, 2019. The legality of the said reclassihcation and retrospective No. 17803 of

20. o8.2019, back billing was challenged in Writ petition 2Ol9 wherein this Court, by order dated suspended operation of back billing demand subject to deposit of one-third of the demanded amount. It is not disputed that petitioner complied with the said condition and the interim order remained in force throughout. Upon final consideration of the pleadings and material in Writ petition No.17803 of 2019, this Court found that change of category from HT-ll to HT-VII and the consequential back billing were effected without issuance of any shou. cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the 2t principles of natural justice, and accordingly t liowed Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019. 8, Once the proceedings giving rise to t h t back billing demand have been set aside, the very foundatior ll impugned demand in the present Writ Petition ceases to exir t. [nsistence of respondents on payment of such back billing lrrears as a condition precedent for dismantling the servict: r onnection is therefore, rendered wholly unsustainabie jr lzrw'. Even otherwise, it is to be noticed, respondents' relizrtr rr on Clause 5.9 .4.2 of Ge neral Terms and Conditions I Supply is misconceived in the facts of the present case. \! rile the said Clause obligates a consumer to clear sums leg I ly clue upon termination of the Agreement, it cannot be invo < :d to compel payment of demands which have been adjudicatr:rI as illegal and unsustainable . Statutory conditions cannot be irL:rpreted in a manner that Validates an otherwise unlawful dcr z rLd or defeals judicial revieu, exercised under Article 226 of thc (l )nstitution.

9. Respondents' action in withholding c rsmantling of 33 KV sub-station, despite admitted disconnecticr of supply on

30. Oa.2O24, has resulted in continued levy of mir i num demand charges on petitioner without any consumptior, of clectricity. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, unrez sonable and ffi disproportionate, particularly when petitioner completed its project, repeatedly sought dismantling, undertaken to bear dismantling costs and is facing pressure from land_owning farmers on whose land the sub-station stands erected. The apprehension expressed by respondents regarding possible difiiculty in recovery of dues cannot be sustained, especially when the back billing itself has been held to be illegal and set aside. In any event, speculative apprehensions cannot override petitioner's contractual and statutory right to have the service dismantled after disconnection, nor can they justify continuance of infrastructure which no longer serves any public or contractual purpose.

10. This Court therefore, is of the considered view that permitting dismantling of service connection and sub_station causes no prejudice whatsoever to respondents, whereas denial of such relief results in continuing financial and legal prejudice to petitioner. Balance of convenience and equity clearly tiits in favour of petitioner. In the light of the same, the Writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11, In the result, the proceedings dated O6.1t.2O24, and the consequential demand insisting on payment of back billing arrears as a pre-condition for dismantling of HT Service

Connection No. BKM-13O and the 33 KV sub-stali: r, are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to dismant t 33 KV sub- station and IIT Service Connection No. BKM-130 t Sita Rama Lilt [rrigation Project, Package-S, Oddu RamiL,; ram Village, Mulakalapalty Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem I strict within four weeks lrom the date of receipt of a copl' , f this order, without insisting on payment of disputed back bit ing amounts. Petitioner shall bear the expenses involved in di ,rnantling, as already undertaken.

11.1. lt is further declared that reclL sification of petitioner's service connection from HT-ll lo HT-VII and consequential back billing demands, which forrrr J the subject matter of Writ Petition No.17803 of 2Ol9 ar : illegal and unsustainablc, and Writ Petition No. 178O3 o- 12019 stands allowed accordingly. It is clarihed that except to he extent set aside hcrein, this Court has not expressed any r rinion on any other independent claims or liabilities, if any, r accordance with lavr,.

72. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is alkrrv :r1. No costs. I t

Z4

13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. Sd/.B. REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Northe r Distribution ComPanY of Telangana Ltd, CorPorate office, Nakkalagutta amakonda, Warangal

2. The SuPerintending Engineer Operations, No ern Power Distribution dri Kothgudem. Company of Telangana Ltd , Operation Circle, Bhadra

3. The Divisional Engineer (Operations)(TSNPDC. L)'. Northern Power Distribution " a;;;;t;itetantana itd', operation circle, Kothsudem

4. The Assistant Divisional engineer, (Operations) (TSNPDCL) Sub Division Paloncha, B. Kothgudem District'

5. The Assistant Divisional engineer, (operations) (TSNPDCL) Mulakalapally

6. The Senior Accounts Officer /CO/ TSNPDCL' Kothgudem' B Kothgudem District

7. One CC to SRI K.MANIK PRABHU, Advocate [OPUCI

8. One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NPDCL [OPUC]

9. Two CD Copies BSRYDAN II i f i E E I I I I To,

1. ,i/,',. ,'

HIGH COURT DATED: 0910112026

ORDER

WP.No.33531 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,\ ( a C: * F \1 b

't, fI.ll 13 t',l 2q,;c