WP/2142/2020 of M/s Kalyani Refineries Ltd Vs The state of Telangana and 3 others on 6 January 2026

ORDER:

Petit.ioner states that it is a Company registered under the Cornpanies Act and established in 1989 for manufacturing of edible and non-edible oils and De-oiled extractions. Thc:.y are having H'I Service Connection No. RJN 587 (MBN 582) and paicl Rs.7,4.+,1OO/- towards development clrarges and Rs. '2,45,8201- towards consumption deposit. As they incurred loss in the business, they could not pay electricity ccrnsnmption charges due to which Respondents disconnected po\ver c,,r A5.12.2OO4 and adjusted the consurnption deposit and cl,aimed Rs. 44,97,7951- towards ) develotcment charges, actual consumption charges and minimum charges during the disconnection period and late payment charges. Petitioner company therefore, made represr:ntation in 2OO4 to waive off unconnect.cd metering charges and minimum charges levied by respondents and develo;rment charges already paid on O5.12.1995, however, as respondents failed to respondent, petitioner claims to have made representation on O8.O3.2OO4. As there is no response, petitiorrer filed Writ Petition No. 7376 of 2OO4 wherein this Court, by order dated 25.08.2005, clirected respondents to considr:r representation and pass orders thereon, but responCents without considering the same, disconnected power supply and terminated the Agreemenr even before filing the Writ Pr:tition and they did not restore []od].'cr supply in spite of several representations made by petitioner.

1.1. It is stated, petitioner conlpany became sick and was not operating, however, Respondents issued the impugned demanrl notice dated 30.10.2019 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 1,35,09,74U - as CC charges and arrears and penalty from O5.L2.2',OO4 to 31.1O.2O19. According to petitioner, the said charges; cannot be claimed by Respondents, as they are barred by limitation and also on the ground that Service Connection ., was disconnected long back, therefore, demanding such huge amount is illegat and arbitrary.

1.2. It is stated, Respondents already adjusted the development cherrges and consumption deposit and claiming the amount of Rs. 35,30, L87 /- for the electricity used from 2OO3 to 2OO4 with penalty of 1.5 o/o p.m. from O5.L2.2OO4 to 3 1. 10.20 19. The original dues as on April 2OO4 were Rs. Ll,47,lO9 i-, out of which Rs. 2,45,82O1- being consumption dcpo:sit, Rs.1,LL,ll2l - excess development charges paid and Rs. 86,080/- UCM charges were already adjusted and petitioner is liable to pay only Rs. 7,O4,O97 l- after the above adjustments but not Rs.36,3O, L87 l-, as demanded by Respondents and even the said amount of Rs. 7,04,097 l- is barred by limitation. It is therefore, prayed to scrt aside the irrrpugned proceedings.

2. By order dated O4.LO.2O2| in I.A.No. 1 of 2021, this Court dirccted rcspondents not to disconnect power supply to the subject lrouse pursuant to the notice dated

16. A9.2021 rvhich is u,ithout prejudice to the contentions raised by petitioner, subject- to their depositing Rs.Ll,47,IO9l- rvithin four weeks from that day. Thereafter, petitioner had taken out I.A. No" 2 of 2O2l to grant eight more weeks to comply with the order clated O4.1O.2O21, on the ground that the Company has not been running since last 15 vears; in CO\/ID-19 pandemic situation, petiLioner could secure only Rs.3 lacs from various people and the said amount was paid to respondent authorities. [n vier,r, of the said subtnission, the Application was allou,ed granting four neeks time from that day to pe titioner to pay the balance Rs.7,47 ,LOg I -.

3. In the counter t'iled on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4, it is stated, petitioner failed to pay C.C. charges from Febnrary 2OO3 to March 2OO4, hcnce po$'er supply ivas disconnected on 16.04.2004 as per Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Even thereaflter, petitioncr did not choose to pa]r the dues; hence as per Clause .5.9.4.3 o[ (]eneral Tt:rms and C)onditions of Supply, service was terlninatecl u,ith eflect from O5.12.2OO4 and the same rvas t:,Lrrtrntrnicated to petitioner. As petitioner did not come fbrwarci t() ptl)/ the dues, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act \ Iere initiatecl by issuinl3 Notices in Forms 'A' and 'B' ibt' Rs. 1,35'09,741 l' uide notice dated 30.1O.2019. It is stated lurther, petitioner initially appliect for new service connection with a loacl of 5O0 KVA and the sarne was released on 21.1O.1992, but thc-y failed to utilize power rsupply and for non-usage of suppl)', UCM (Unconsumed Minimtrm Charges) were raisecl tbr four months @ Rs. 1, I1',2OO I - p.m. totalling to Rs. 4,64,8OO I -. ,I

i i i a I I i I I ! i I I i I I I i I I I

3.1. It is further stated, petitioner approached the Corporate Ofllce oI Resporrdents on 30.08.2002 seeking restoration of power supl:ly and the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of Corporate Office of Respondents uid.e letter dated 17.O9.2OO2, direct.ed release of service connection subject to (a) collecting Rs. 4,64,800/- to',r,ards UCM charges in l2 instalments lbr old service; (b) collecting security deposit of Rs. 66O0,0O0/ -; and (c) collecting Rs.6,OO,OOO I - towards I development charges. [t is stated that petitioner paid the first instalment and entered into Agreement for new service for 400 KVA nncl the service was releasecl on O5.l2.2OO2; petitioner thereafter. failed to pay the instalments, hence, service was disconnected on i6.O4.2O04 and the Agreement was also termirrated c.;fl'ective from 05.I2.2OO4 as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conclitions of Supply. The breakup of the dues, as merrti<lned by respondettts, is as follows. Arrears a.s on date of termination of Agreement Rs. 38,76,OO7 /- Less : Deposit available as on termination of Agreement Rs. 2,45,82Of - Agreement Add:__ Development Charges balance Rs. Add: UCM charges Rs. Total dues as on the dat.e of termination of Agreement 4,88,888/- 3,78,72O/- (r 3.2 It is further contended thert- Writ l]ctition No. 737'6 c>t 2OO4 was filed before this Court n'trerein by order date'd 28.O3.2OO5 Respondents \ /ere directed to consider and dispose of the represeutation of pctitioner cllrted 08.03.2004 and pass appropriate orders and in obedience of the saicl order, petitioner''s representatiou was considered and the following order \,vas passed ancl the same \ ras communicated to petitioner on 10.O5.2005. Vy'aiver of minimum charges of Rs. 27,24,1 83/- cannot be agreed as p,er the terms and conditions o[ supply. Petitiorrer has to pir.1 Rs. 47 ,28,21 1 / - for restoration o[ porver suppl.v. l{ou'ever u'a iverr o[ rrinimum charges may be considered if petitioner obtair-rs pernrission fi>r reimbursement of loss oi revenue ol1 rrccou nt of at)v concession/waiver of charges as per the tariff order conilitions. \,y'aiver o[ Development Charges ]ras been considerc'd and .'lro-rer'<l to. Flequest for waiver of Unconsumed Minimum Charges cannot be agreed to. However CPDCL shall consider granting o[ instalments for F,a),ment of dues on specific request.

3.3. It is also stated, petitioner once agairr approached the C)MD of Respondent Compan.'7 ()n 05.'J9.20 i9 and requesrted to settle the dues of electricitv r,vhir:h '*,a,s rejectcd uide letter dated O7.lI.2Ol9. Petitioner which has not paid installments granted earlier cannot be shown any leniencc for settler:eent of dues. Therefore, proceedings under the Revenue Recovt:ry Act have been initiated and that there is no illcgalitv or irregularity in the impugnec{ proceeclings. a r.! a ri r -i

4. Heard Sri P. Ramachandran, learned counsel for petitioner as urell as Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel lor responclc:n[s.

5. Petitioner rvhich earlier failed to honour the instalments granted by Respondents and failed to make payment of C.C. Charges, approached this Court questioning the impugned proc<:edings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in TGSPDCL u. Srtgdhaa Beaeragesr held rhat electricity dues are statutory in nature, therefore, no exemption can be granted from payrnent of the same. Except stating that the demand made by Respondents is tiarred by limitation, petitioner has not raised any clttrer contentions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assista nt Engtineer, Ajmer Vidgut Vitran Nigam Ltd. a. Rclhamatullah Khan2, u,hile interpreting Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, held that limitation period of two years under Section 56 (21 commetlces from the date on which electricity charges bccome lirst due. This provision restricts the right of the licensee company to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues by the consumer unless such sum has been shown continuously to be recoverable as arrears of electricity suppl-v in the bills raised for th<: past period. If the t 12O2Ol6 SCC 404 't2O2Ol4 SCC 650

I Iicensee company is alrowed to disconnect electricity supply after expiry of limitation period o[ tvvo years after the surn became first due, it would clefeat the object ol tr're provision. It is further held that Section 56 (21 does rrot preclude the licensee company from raising supplementary demand after expiryoftheperiocloflimitatiorr.Itonlyrest-rictstherightof the licensee to disconnect electricit-v suppl5" cltte to non- paymentrfduesaftertheperiodollimitatiotrexpirednordoes it restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licens3e company for recovery of supplementary demand'

6. tn the case on hand, po\iver supply to petitioner wasdisccnnecteclonlyon:,6.04.2004anrltillthen,regular bills wer(} being issued but petitiorrer \,l,'as not. nrakirrg payments from February 2003 to March 20(14' Therefore' the Agreemenl was terminated on 15'12'2004 invokirrg Clause 5.9.4.3o[GeneralTermsandConditionsotsuppl'y.Itisnot eventhe:aseo[petitionerthatt-toclcmarrclrn,asraisedfor paymentofC.C.chargestillthedateoftermination.Petitioner, whichisachronicdefaulter,hasnotclisclosedallthesefactsin theaffidavitandtheyhavenotcotnetothisCourtv',ithclean hands. As the electricity dues are statutory in nature, they are liable to tre paid by petitioner and the claim that dues are barredbylimitationcannotbecountenanced.'lhisCourtSeeS

() no grounds for interference to interdict the impugned proccedings. The Writ Petition is therefore, clevoid of merits and tlre same is liahle to be rlismissed.

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

8. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stancl closed. SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR E.NERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. ohe CC to SRI P.iRAIVIACHANDRAN, Advocate [oPUC]

3. One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

To SA TKS

HIGH C,OURT DATED:0610112026 WP.No.2142 of 2020 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS ( THE S 0 5 l4l\R 2rl2[ o * * Ei @ b el" -