WP/11099/2025 of M/S. SRI RAMA AGRO Vs The State of Telangana on 6 January 2026

1. M/S. SRI .RlM$ AGRO. 149-15OtAt1, Bompally, Peddapalli District. Bepresented by its [Vlanaging partner, Sri SamuOra'la Rajesh'am, S/o. IMi. Badraiah. AND

1. The State of Telangala, $ep,.by its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, Secretariat Buiidings, Hydera'bad.

2. The Northern Power Distribution C^ompany of_Telangana Limited,, Rep by its Chairman andl/anaginq plregtor Corircrdte Office. -H.tto. 2-5-31i2, Corpbrate office, _Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkaragutta, Hanamkonda, warangal, Tetangana 506001,

3. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Operation Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana, p-eddapalli District.

4. Tfrg Qeputy Executive Enginegl (DEP), Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana, Karimnagaf District. 5- The Assistant Divisional Engineer Operation, Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana, peddapalli bistrict. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrrdia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the. a) action of 4th Respondent in issuing the impugned notice' for imposing for :Development charges vide Lr. No. ADE/OP/PDPL/F.No/DNo. 186412024-25 dated 29t11t2024 with respect to SC No. 55316-01184 Category LT3-|NDUSTRY of s5316-BoMpALLy (Dist), classifying the LT connection to HT Connection and thereby directing the Petitioner to regularize the additional connected load by rluly paying the required Service Line Charges, Development charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs. 29,800/- (Rupees Twenty Nine thousand Eight hundred only) towards Service Line Charges Development Charges And Security Deposit, being illegal, non-est in law, arbitr;rry, violative of principles of natural justice and consequenfly set aside the same, b) and further pass lA NO:1 OF 2025 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 suspend thr: Notice for Development charges vide is. No. ADE/OP/PDPL/F.No/DNo. 186412024-25 dated 29t11t2024 with respect to sc No. 55316-01184 Category LT-tNDUSTRY of 5S316-BOMPALL.y (Dist) classifying the LT connection to HT connection and thereby directing the Petitioner to regularize the additional connected load by duly paying the required service Line charges, Development charges and security Deposit amounting to Rs. 29,800/- (Flupees Twenty Nine thousand Eight hundred onty) issued by the Respondent Nc,. 4. IA F 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affid'avit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to levy monthly current bills as per the actual load of LT units pendinll the disposal of the writ petition. O:3OF Between

1. The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telanqana Limited.. Reo bv its Chairman and Managing Director Corfordte Office.-H.No. Z-S-31i2. Cbrobrate Office^, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangaia 506001

2. The Deputy_Executive Ehgineer, Operation Northern power Distribution Company ,:f Telangana, preddapalli District.

3. The Deputy Executive EnSlllggt (DEp), Northern power Distribution Company of Telangana, Karimnagai Distriit.

4. The Assistrnt Divisional Engineer Operation, Northern power Dishibution Company of Telangana, Peddapalli bistrict. '

AND ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NOS:2 TO 5 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 1 . M/S. SRI RAMA AGRO, 149-15OlAl1, Bompally, Peddapalli District. Represented by its Managing partner, Sri Samudrala Rajesham, S/o. It/r. Badraiah. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Depa rtment, Secretariat B u ild ings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in tht-. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the interim order dated: 22-04-2025 in WP. No. 11099 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition as it is devoid of merits and may pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2TOS : SR! A.CHANDRA SHEKAR, SC FOR TGNPDCL The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 1 1099 OF 2()25 06.0l.20/26 Between: M/s Srr Rama Agro Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Samudrala Rajesham Petitioner And The State o[ Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Polrrcr B, Encrgz Department and four others .. Respondents ORDE} R: The notice issued by the sth respondent for imposinS Development Charges, dated 29.11.2024, in respect of Service Connection No.55316-01 184, Category LT3-INDUSTRY of 55315-Bompally (Dist), is impugned in this Writ petition. Petitioner challenges classification of the existing LT connection as HT :onnection. They seek a consequential direction to regularize the alleged additional connected load by paying Service Linc Charges, Development Charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs.29,800/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousan,l Eight Hundred only)

. 'ii i'r

2. The brief case is that petitioner firm is a rice mill, obtained Service Connection No.55316-01184 in October 2O2l under Category LT3 with an approved connected load of 99 LP. In 2022, due to an increase in work and operational requirements of the rice mill, they applied for enhancement of the connected load to 124.5 LP; enhanced load was sanctioned and was being utilized by petitioner till December 2024. Subsequently, due to changes in Government policy whereby the compulsory supply of rice was withdrawn, business of petitioner was severely affected. As a result, petitioner's consumption load drastically reduced from 124 LP and as on the date of the affidavit, they were using only 64 LP consumption load for the purpose of carrying out job works. Z.t. While so, Respondent No.5 conducted an inspection on 29.1L.2O24 and thereafter issued the impugned letter observing that though the Contracted Load was below the approved 124.0 LP, the Connected Load as per inspection was found to be L44.5 HP and there was an excess connected load of 21.0 HP 'over the contracted load. On this basis, Respondent No.5 proceeded to convert LT service connection into HT connection and directed petitioner to regularize the additional connected load by depositing Rs.29,8OOl-.The impugned notice J further cilllecl upoll petitioner to submit an explanation, failing whichth,:serviccconnectionwasproposedtobedisconnected immcdiatell,arfterexpiryofthenrrticeperiod'Petitioner categoricllliyasset.tsthatthevneverappliedforlobtainedHT .or,rr.61iotl arncl have always been operating only under LT connectl()n

2.2. [)eLititlrler states ttlat they submitted representation on 28.O'.a.'21)25 to Respondent No'S, pointing out that the cotrnecte:l lolrd hacl been |24.o LP tor the past three years and that the allcgecl connected load of 145 HP was never used by thern an<l rcquested to conduct re-inspection of the premises to ascertair: tlrt: actual connected load of the petitioner {irm' It is alsothe.rcasethatreplydated|7.o3.2o25wassubmitted staring [hat Ile spondent No.5 had ascertained the actual consumF)tion load as only 84 LP and accepted the current bill clated 2;3.0'2.2025 after deducting the extra load and also confirmcci the consumption toacl of petitioner firm as 84 LP'

2.3. Despite the above developments' it is stated' for March - April 2025, Respondent No'S has not revoked the impugned notice and continued to erroneously charge electricity bills on I{T urnit basis and issued the impugned proceedings and consequontial bills. It is further stated, even as on the date of

.iir(, filing the affidavit, minimum charges per unit are being levied on HT unit basis, which clearly indicates conversion of service connection from LT to HT category; such levy is unjustifiabte and resulted in an exponential inc.ease in monthty electricitl' bills. For March and April 2025, Rs.79,596/- and Rs.79,6281- respectively were levied. According to petitioner, Respondent No.S has no material to justify levy of development charges in respect of the said service connection. In similar circums[ances, this Court, while setting aside the impugncd notice for Development Charges, disposed of Writ Petition No. 20457 ot 2022, hence, contends that impugned notice dated 29.11.2024 issued by Respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside.

3. While issuing notice before admission, this Court bv order dated 22.04.2025 directed Respondent No.5 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of petitioner clated

28. O2.2025 strictly in accordance with law, as expeditior-rsly aS possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and communicate a copy thereof t<> petitioner

4. A vacate stay Application was filed on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5 stating that on O8..O5.2O24, petitioner applied for a second electricity service in ttre name of Sri

,.n: .l ri Samudrala Sh5r2111 Sunder; on 10.05.2024, after inspection of the servicr: llrcrniscs, the Application \ ras rejected on the ground l-hat. tl-re exisrir-rg sr:rt'i<;e coturection bearing SC No-55316-01184 and thc ncu,ly applicd service were located within the same premises elnrl consumer was aclvised that if a new service connection \vas required, a compound rvall with separate entrancrls rnust bt: erected betvveen the t'*'o services, however, consumer clicl not take an-r'[ttrther steps pursuant to the said advice. Whilc tal<ing monthh. meter readings, it was observed that thc rec:orciecl Maximum Demand exceeded the contracted load, and the salne \^'as communicat.ed to AAE/DPE/Peddapally u,ho on 18. 11.2024, inspected the sen'ice location and observed that corrsunrer \\'as rttnning another industry from the same premiser;, cir:spite the fact that earlier permission for a second scruice tracl been rcjected. [t is stated that the sanctioned load of Service (}rnnecti<)n lvas 124 llP erncl ihe additional load utilized v,,as cal('Lrlated as 15.293 kW, being the difference 2O.5 HP at the conversion ratc o[ I HP cqual to 0.746 kW.

4.1. Baseci on the inspection note, the impugned notice was issrred to petitioner calling upon him to regularize the additional load and to pay Development Charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs.29,8OOl-, strictly in accordance with

i -l i1 \.. ".'

existing rules and by duly following the principles of natural justice. However, the consumer continued to utilize power in excess of the sanctioned 10ad. on o5.t2.2024, the recorded Maximum Demand was L12.7 kVA, which is equivalent to 151.07 HP, exceeding even 144.5 HP; such demand was recorded in the meter as well as in the Electricity Billing System records. It is further stated, on 28.02.2025, the consumer submitted a representation to ADE/Operation/Peddapally requesring re-inspection and claiming that the load did not exceed I24 HP, while also seeking deration of load from 145 HP to L24 HP; pursuant thereto, inspection was conducted on

07. O3.2O25 and observed that consumer was utilizing electricity supply for a newly formed industry with an additional load of 66 FIP through a change-over sr,r'itch connected between the old industry and the new inclustry sheds, hence, they were advised to remove the excess load, but they failed to comply with the same 4.2.itisstated,on17.03.2025,theconsumer addressed a representation to' SE/OperationlPeddapally requesting copies of the load inspection sheets prepared by AAE/DPE/Peddapally and ADE/operation/Peddapally, stating that he was willing to tnake payment if the connected load I I I I

r.(' . exceeclecl 124 HP and requesting removal of additional load chargcs lrotLr lr4au'ch 2025 bill. t-Ion'ever, aS the connected load r,vas not rccliicccl, the bill r,r,ers not altered. On O7.04.2025, a legal noticr: was got issued to str/operation/Peddapally, ADD/Operal ion/ Pedda.pally atrd AAE/ DPE /Peddapally seeking revision of the electricit5r bill based on sanctioned Load of L24 FIP inst:act ol 114.5 HP and subsequetltl1', filed this Writ Petition 4.3. tt is also stated, on 26'06'2025, ADE/Operalion/Pedclapallir again inspected the service location in the l)rescnce of consumer and recorded their statement, during the saicl inspection, it rvas found that the total connected load of the old inclustry and ttie nen, itrdustry together was 209 Hir, eqtrivalent to 155.914 kW, existing r,"ithin the same premiset;. Consurner also atdmittecl that he lvas running both inclustrit:s as per his rcquiremcnt b-v using a change-over sq,itch. The conSumer's staLement is stated to have been enclosed with the rccorcls. These respondents rely upon the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commissioh Tariff Order for FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29, specifically clause 9.12-8, which stipulatt:s that the connected load shall not exceed the contracted load specified in the agreement and that fixed t

I ^_, l/ charges shall be computed based on the contracted load or' actual recorded demand, whichever is higher. Though the contracted load prior to November 2024'*'r. 124 HP, the connected load I^ras much highcr. Clause ').1').1O(iv), which provides that where recordecl demand of any LT-III service exceeds 75 kVA, or 93 kVA for rice mills, equivalent to L24 -66 HP, such recorded demand shall be billed at HT-l (11 kVsupply) demand charges with notice. Since the connected load during the inspection on i8. t t .2024 was 144.5 HP, w'hich exceeded L24 HP, billing was changed from t,T-lll to HT category. 4-4. Respondents further relying upol1 Clauses 5-3-2 and I'2.3.3.2, conteuds that the impugned notice was issued strictly within the scopc of these provisions and in accordance with the applicable electricity rules. Petitioner's request for deration of toad from 145 HP Lo 124 HP cannot be considered, as the connected load w'as found to be more than 124 HP, specifically 2Og HP as on 26.06.2025. According to these respondents, the order in Writ l']etition No.20457 of 2022 is not applicable to the present case, as in that matter action was taken without issuance of notice, whereas in the present case notice was issued strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure --'- ta, ,' .ii:]..:::.: -

{

5. f,etitioner filed a rejoinder stating that as per Clause 3.4.1<l[t-[rc(lcrreralTermsatrclConclitionsofSupply,any reclassifi<;atittt-t of consumer category from LT to HT requires issuanc:e of a prior show-causc nt>tice, grant of 15 days'time for objections, and ltassing of . 'reas<;necl order but no such procedurre wirs tbllowed. The impugned letter dated 29'lL'2024 is onll, r. clemand notice ancl not a vzrlid show-cause notice, renderinli the action vitiated. Even in cases where additional connectel l0erd is detected in LT Category-lll connections, clausc 12.3.3 ma.ndates issuance of a notice of at least one month tc enzrble regularization of such additional load' No such notice wzts issued in the present case'

5.1. With regard to the allegation of excess RMD of tiZ.Z kVA recorded on O5. L2.2O24, it is stated, the impugned denrand clatccl 2g.L1.2o24 pertaius to a period when actual consum[rticln was substantially bclor,t' thc contracted load' Betrn,cen Ma_y and November 2024, the recorded maximum demand consistently remained belorv loo kvA as per billing records; RMD of 112.7 kvA occurred only on 05.12.2024, subsequ,:nt to issuance of the impugned demand, and the Decembe: r 2024 charges were duly regqlarized by payment. The EBS billing history from Novembe r 2024 to June 2025 shows (-,. l0 only one exceed in Decetnber 2024, while flor subsequent months the demand remained below 93 kVA, including January 2025 at 78.4 kVA, March 2A25 art 73.3 kVA, ar-rcl April 2025 at

50. O kVA. Despite this, I{T Lrilling of approximately Rs-2,79,OO0 to Rs.2,81,O00 per month continued, which is arbitrary. 5-2. According to petitioner, a change-ot'er switch does not increase sanctioned load or result in unauthorized consumption; it only enablcs cotrtrolled and sa[e distribution of supply. Its existence does not establish simultaneouts operation of two industries or excess loacl and this allegation does not find mention in the impugned dernand notice under challenge. tt is emphasized, petitioner consistently operated only one unit at a time, dependirrg on operational reqrrirements, and supply was never drawn simultaneously bv both units. The purpose of the change-over sr.vitch is precisely to prevent concurrent usage.

5.3. It is argued, Clauses 9.12.8 and 9.12.10 apply only when recorded demand exceeds contracted load. The alleged figures relied upon are unsllpported by metering data and are based on inflated assessments. Clause 9.L2.10(d) authorizes biiling of excess d.emand for a particular month at HT-I demand charges with notice, but does not authorize permanent conversion of an LT service to HT category without compliance \\, .- ----i .44 I i Ij (. 1 : -- ---

.r' / I ll with Clattse l].4.1 of the GTCS' Clause 9'12'8 contemplates fixat,ionolchargcsbasedoncontractedloadoractualrecorded demarnd,whicheverishigher.Thepetitioner,Scontractedload was |24 HP, and the recorded demancl never exceeded this limit. The connected load assessment during inspection on 18.11.2(),24isrreitherarecordeda"*,,,anorasanctioned parzlmeter uuclct' the service agreement' making its use for revising trilling impermissible'

5.4. Clause g'12'10(iv) applies only where recorded demzrncl cf an L'[-III service exceeds 75 kVA' or 93 kVA in the casc o[ rice niills. The respondents have failed to produce metering data demonstrating such exceed' Reliance on connected loacl derived from inspection does not satisfy the statuton rcquirement, as tarift provisions recognize only recclrdccl clcrnand through metering' The stand of respondents thzrr derzttion of load from 145 HP t() 124 HP is impermissible is clcr-riecl. Uncler the TSERC Supply Code' a consumer has the right to secl< deration of contracted load subject to technical feasibility, and the licensee is bound to consider such request' The connecred load evaluation of 209 HP on 26-06'2025 is arbitrary., presumptive, and unsupported by recorded demand. It is finally stated, respondents failed to establish that recorded . 'i .:.. - .,l.t';+:l{.1#

demand at any point exceeded the contracted load of 124 HP. The reliance on combincd connected load of two independent units in the same premises is misleading, as connected loacl is not the governing cril-errion undcr Clausc 9.1..2.1O(iv); recorded demand alone is determinativc. Pctitioncr therefore, submitted representation dated 08.05.2025 seeking deration or continuation under LT-lll category based on sanctioned and recorded demand, but without considering the same, respondents issued demand noticcs dated 24.O4-2025 for Rs.3,59,O3ll- and dated 22.08.2025 for Rs.4,42,608l-, requiring payment within seven days. The said action violates sections 43 and 50 of the Electricity Act, 2oo3, which mandate supply strictly in accordance with agreed terms and adherence to the Supply Code notified by the Commission-

6. During the hearing, pe titioner filecl additional affidavit stating that inspection rcport is wholly {hbricated and created, and they had never signed the saici document nor received it at any point of time. It is further stated, respondents have relied upon certain photographs allegedly depicting petitioner's premises and a change-over switch; while petitioner does not deny the existence of change-over switch or the machinery shown in the photographs, it is categorically stated ! I ,+" (l

ir\*/. ir*?:,: t3 t,hatthesaidphotographsneitherestablishnorindicatethe cxisLellceo[irnl,excessConncctcclloaclandmerepresenceof Inaci-}illc'lYori]change-overSu,itchCannotbeConstruedaS proclf of' raistrse or excess demand'

6.1. }:'critiotrerst.atesthattheprernisescontaintwosets ol'rnar:hinet.r'separated by a boundary wall' Since the dorn.nsizi:.rg <il tlperations, onlt, tlre lor,r.er_capacity machinery is in olrcrlrtion. Thr: r:hange-over s,,rvitch installed at the premises is €l stirnc]:rrcl clectrical installation intended exclusively for sr,r'itchin15 bc'ts'cen the regular power supply line and a 45 HP backup gencrator during power outages' It is also stated' responcle nts hitve not conducteci any second inspection; such a contention lras been raisecl only to justify the arbitrary and iliegal cli;r.:otrtrcction of power supply; petitioner operates only a 60 HP r.ir;e nrili ;rncl oldcr machinery has been disconnected and kcpt in a lrtckcd adjoining room. Petitioner relies upon the rccorded maxirnum demand (RMD) data for the last ten months, which c,tnsistcntly shows power consumption far below the contractr:d demand ancl never exceeding 5o kvA. tf machinery of 200 HP or two rice mills were being operated as alleged, the RMD would have necessarily spiked, rvhich never occurred.

t4

6.2. It is further stated, during pendency of Writ Petition, respondents issuecl demancl notices ciated 18.07.2025 and 22.O8.2025, and zrlso affixccl a no[ice orl petitioner's premises reiterating the same allegations alread-v contained in the counter affidavit which is vindictive and high-handed on the part of respondents. Even assuming, without adrnitting, that there was any excess connected load, the applicable rules mandate passing of a reasoned order after ft>llowing due process, which has not been complied with. Despite an interim ord.er, no SuCh order has been passed till dztLe, and only repeated demand notices have been issued.

6.3. It is also stated, subsequent tcl issuartr;e of demand notices, respondents disconnected petitioner's eler:tricitV service connection in violation of thc interim orders and in total disregard of judicial propriety. Due lo which, petitioner is unable to continue the work, resulting in linzrncial loss of Rs.50,0OO/- per day. Petitioner therefore, is sLated to have made representations dated 27.09.2025 and 26.09.2025, but the same have not been acted upon. Petitioner categorically denies the contents of the letter issued by respondents dated 07.1L.2O25 along with the enclosed letter datecl 17.10.2025. It iSst4ted that the statements contained thert:ip are false, (-' ,,l r-\ :1\#: ":i;'l .r:,:.., :, :' .:- .

l5 fabricated, and have been issued solely to cure serious defects and cotrtradictions in the counter affidavit already filed in the prc)sent u,'rit pctition.'lhe expianations offered therein are allegccl .o trc atr aftertl'rought arrcl devoid of credibility. tt is finalll' sultnrittc'cl that t.he said lctters again refer to alleged commur- ications datcd 18.O7.2025, 22.O8.2O25, L3.1O.2025 and 17.1o.2015, none of r.r'hich were ever served upon petitior-re r.

7. F{t'arcl Sri Salvaji Raia Shekar Rao, learned counsel for petitic>nt:r and Sri A. Chandrzr Shaker, learned Standing Counsel lor re:spondents.

8. ThC core issue involved in this writ Petition is not merclv thc iu'ttizrl consumption at a given point of time but the existenc: o[ cotrnected load and recorded demand in excess of thc szrnr:tioni'<l and cot.ttracted load. The regulatory framework govcrnir:g elcctricity supply clearly distinguishes between sanctioned l<lad, connected load and recorded maximum demand clause g.n.a of the Tariff order unequivocally mandatos that connected lclad shall not exceed the contracted load, and that fixed charges shall be computed on the basis of contracted load or actual recorded demand, whichever is higher. Clause 9.l2.io(iv) specilically provides for billing under HT-l ItiI ', '.i;;ii*

l6 category where the recorded demand of an LT-III service, including rice mills, exceeds the prescribed threshold. Ttrese provisions do not reqltire a prior application l:-V the constlmer for conversion from LT to HT, but operate automatically upon breach of sanct.ioued limits, subjcct to issuzrnce of trotice. Clauses 5.3.2 and 12.3.3.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply empower the licensee to recover development charges and security deposit for additional load. g. Petitioner's contention that they trever applied for HT connection and therefore, coukl not have t:eetr billecl tttlder HT category cannot be accepted in the teeth ol' Lhe stalutory tariff provisions, which empower the licensee to reclassify billing based on connected load and recorded demarrcl. 'lhe rec:ord discloses that the impugned notice dated 2L).11.2O24 was issued, catling upon petitioner to regularize the excess load for which they submitted representations on 28.02.2025 and 17.03.2025, hence the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. During the inspcction, it was found that sanctioned load of Service Connection was t24 HP and additional load utilized was calculated as 15.293 kW, being the difference 20.5 HP at the conversion rate of 1 HP equal to 0.746 kW. Though petitioner was called upon to regularize the l': ,'i (. ), ilv,:.

l1 additionzrl load and to pay Development charges and Securit5r Deposit ilmotrnting to Rs.29,800/-, they continued to utilize powcr i,, g>(1'c:sS ol' thc siructionccl loerd. It is categorically stated in thr: c:r.,-rnter. on o5. L2.2024, the recorded Maximum Demand \\ras 112.7 kVA, cxceecling even 144.5 HP; such demand was recorclccl in thc tncter as u,ell as in thc Electricity Billing System records. It is also the case of rr:spclndents that on 28.O2.2O25, petitioncr sr-rl:n-ritted represcntation requesting re-inspection claimirrg tl-rtrt thr: Ioacl rlid uot cxceed 124 HP and also seeking deration o[ loacl from 145 FIP to 124 HP; pursuant thereto, inspcction \\,as r:onducted on 07.o3.2o25 and observed that consllm(lr was utilizing electricity supply for a newly formed industrl r,vith an erdditional load of 66 HP through a change-over switch r-onnct:lt:rl betrt'ccn olcl erncl neu' industry sheds, hence, thev rve 'c ad.,risccl to rernove ttre CxCeSS load, but they failed to compll.',vith thi' siLln(:.

10. Lcrarlrecl Stancling counsel has drawn attention of this Ct>r-rrt to tl-rc juclgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executiae Engineer, Electricity supplg compang' of orissa Lirniteat- a. Sri Seetarann Rice Milll and contends that consumption of electricity in excess of sanctioned load constitu tes 'unaLtthorised usc of electricit5r' under Section 126 I 1zo tu ) 2 :;cct lo8

Explanation (b)(iv) of the Act. The Supreme Court clarified tht the term 'unauthorised use' iS illustrative and not- exhaustive and includes any usage in violation of contractual or statutory provisions. [n view of the saict judgment, petitioner's conduct squarely falls within the ambit of Section 126 warranting assessment and levy of charges for excess load- I 1. It is also to be seen, the reliance placed by petitioner on Writ Petition No.20457 of 2022 is misconceived, pS, as rightly pointed out by respondents, in the said r:ase, action was taken without issuing notice, whereas in the present L case, notice-dated 29.11.2024 rvas aclmittedly issued, followed by further inspections and corresponclence. 'lhe factual matrix is thus distinguishable, and the said decision dor:s not aclvauce the petitioner's case. L2. The atlegations regarding fabricalion of inspection report, non-service of notices, and mala fides are bakl and unsupported by cogent nraterial. On the contrary, respondents placed on record inspection notes, meter data, recorded maximum demand figures and regulatory provisions justifying their action. The petitioner,'s own representations seeking deration and re-inspection, and the admitted existence of a , change-over switch connecting different sheds, probabilise the ,,. ] ii n'

t. ,. Df.t,.

respondents'version that excess connected load existed at the premises. The argument that actual consumption was low does not neSJate the existence of connected load and recorded demand, which are the determinative factors .under the Tariff

Order.

13. The demand for Development Charges and Security Deposit of Rs.29,8OO/- is supported by Clauses 5.3.2 and L2.3.3.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, which empower the distribution licensee to collect such charges when additional or excess load is detected. The impugned notice dated

29. L1.21)24 cannot, therefore, be characterized as arbitrary or without authority of law. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that the action of the respondents in issuing the notice dated 29.LI.2024, reclassifying billing from LT-llI to HT caLegory, and lerrying Development Charges and consequential bills is traceable to statutory tariff provisions and contractual terms governing electricity supply. No violation of constitutional or statutory rights of the petitioner is made out.

14. It is well-settled., jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. This Court does not sit as an expert authoriW to re-evaluate technical findings recorded by statutory authorities under the Electricit5r If ,.., ,..'.'' :.. ;":i;,1ifi . -'-l+f#tr

it I I i i : j i i : i ! : 1-\

Act, 2003. Unless petitioner establishes that the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to mandatory statutory provisions or vitiated by patent illegality or mala fides apparent on the face of the record, interference under Article 226 is not warranted. This Court is therqfore, of the view that Writ Petition does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 1,6. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. .c. ANT ,,TRUE COPY" (l tt \ I I ir f, I i ., DEVI OFFICER To,

4.

5. B. Two CD CoPies' BSK ?$A. BS , it , ,..:"lliffi

HIGH COURT DATED:06/01 IlAZG

ORDER

WP.No.11099 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @r^u, >qlil* )iI/f f^,R S

o C) H 't 6 * *