M/S. Hetero Labs Limited vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned letter vide Lr.No. SE/O /AKP /EE.T /Dy.EE.C and T /AE.C/E-333346/ D.No.I/ 10051313/2026 dated 03.07.2026 and Notice vide Lr.No. SE /O /AKP /EE.T /Dy.EE.C andT/AE.C/E-333346 /D.No.I /979844 /26 dated 24.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3 thereby proposing to levy voltage surcharge, extra demand and energy charges as per tariff order in CC Bills of the Petitioner's four units with. Service Connection Nos. VSP-768, VSP-1925, VSP-824, VSP-906 with effect from April, 2026 by treating the cumulative Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) as 15000 kVA and further insisting the Petitioners for merging of units in SEZ and units in Non-SEZ as two single Service Connections respectively as arbitrary, illegal, without juri iction, contrary to General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the Retail Supply Tariff Orders for the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 besides violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the same by restraining the Respondents from levying Voltage Surcharge against the Petitioner herein and further direct the Respondents not to insist for merging of Petitioners units, except in accordance with the law”

The case of the petitioners is that the respondent issued the impugned letter dated 03.07.2026, pursuant to the Notice dated 24.03.2026, directing the petitioners to treat the cumulative Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of the Non-SEZ Units and SEZ Units separately. By the said letter, the respondent further informed the petitioners that, with effect from April 2026, a voltage surcharge would be levied in respect of the CC bills pertaining to the units situated in the SEZ area by taking into consideration the cumulative CMD exceeding 10,000 KVA. The respondent also called upon the petitioners to take necessary steps for merging Service Connections VSP604 and VSP689 as a single service, and Service Connections VSP768, VSP824, VSP906, and VSP1925 as another single service.

Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had submitted a detailed representation dated 04.05.2026, explaining that the four petitioner companies are distinct legal entities, having separate premises and independent registrations under the GST laws. It was specifically contended that clubbing all the petitioner companies together for the purpose of electricity supply through 132 KV voltage and for one billing is contrary to the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Clause 3.5.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees defines "separate establishments," and that each of the petitioner companies satisfies the prescribed criteria for being treated as a separate establishment entity. Therefore, Clause 3.5.3 has no application to the petitioner companies. He further contends that these facts were clearly brought to the notice of the respondents through the representation dated

2026. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 03.07.2026 is arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL, submits that the petitioners themselves had addressed a representation dated 16.04.2026 to the respondents, wherein they admitted that, although the petitioner companies are separate legal entities, they all belong to the same group and promoted by the same promoters and requested the respondents to provide electricity supply under a cumulative 132 KV service. However, subsequently, for reasons best known to them, the petitioners addressed another representation dated 04.05.2026, requesting the respondents not to act upon the earlier representation. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, in view of the petitioners' own admission that the units, though separate legal entities, belong to the same group under common promoters, the provisions of Clause 3.5.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply are attracted. Consequently, the respondents are justified in treating the petitioner units as falling within the same group for the purpose of electricity supply, and, therefore, the impugned letter dated 03.07.2026 is valid and enforceable. However, learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that the electricity bills placed on record along with the writ petition prima facie indicate that the four petitioner companies are separate legal entities, functioning from separate premises and holding independent GST registrations. He submits that if the petitioners produce all relevant records and material before the respondents to establish that they constitute separate establishments within the meaning of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees. He further submits that the impugned letter dated 03.07.2026 may be treated as a notice, enabling the petitioners to submit their explanation along with supporting material, which shall be duly considered by the respondents before taking any further action.

Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL, and perused the material available on record.

Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed before this Court, the impugned letter dated 03.07.2026 issued to the petitioners shall be treated as a notice. The petitioners are granted liberty to submit a detailed explanation, along with all relevant documents and material, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to establish that the petitioner companies are separate legal entities and separate establishments and, therefore, cannot be treated as a single company or as companies falling under the same group for the purpose of applying Clause 3.5.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Upon receipt of such explanation and supporting material, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees, within a period of two (2) months thereafter. Till such exercise is completed and appropriate orders are passed, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps or proceed further pursuant to the impugned letter dated 03.07.2026. 7. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed.