M/S Scan Energy And Power LTD vs. The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Grey Gold Cements Limited and other similar entities, challenged orders passed by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) determining Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for the Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The TGERC's orders were pursuant to directions from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and were implemented by the Southern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGSPDCL) through demand notices. The petitioners argued that the TGERC failed to issue proper notices and follow due procedure, violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that they were exempt from CSS due to prior government consent for their power sources. The TGERC and TGSPDCL asserted that all procedural requirements, including notices and publication, were met. The petitioners sought to quash the TGERC's orders and the consequential demand notices.

Held

The Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It found that the TGERC had taken all necessary steps by issuing notices through registered post where possible, publishing on its official website, and in newspapers on multiple occasions, intimating hearing dates. The Court stated that if the petitioners did not avail the opportunity to participate, the TGERC could not be blamed. The Court further noted that the TGERC has the power to frame tariff determination terms and conditions under Section 61 and to determine tariff on application by a licensee under Section 62. For parties aggrieved by such determination, an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is provided. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court was not inclined to probe the validity of the TGERC's order on merits. The Court was satisfied that the TGERC had complied with Clauses 16(ii) and 17 of the Business Regulations by issuing hearing dates in newspapers, placing them on its website, and sending notices via email and registered post. Therefore, in light of Supreme Court pronouncements and the facts, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court also referred to a previous order in Writ Petition No. 12440 of 2024 and batch, where a similar issue was dealt with, and the parties were relegated to the remedy of appeal, which was upheld by a Division Bench in Writ Appeals No. 881 of 2025 and batch.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) violated the principles of natural justice by failing to issue adequate notices to the petitioners before determining the Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, thereby rendering its order illegal and liable for set aside, as argued by the petitioners, who relied on Section 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and previous High Court judgments. 2. Whether the petitioners are exempt from paying CSS, as they had obtained consent from the competent government under Section 43-A(1)(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and relied on a Government of India order, a contention not explicitly addressed by the respondents in the provided text. 3. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petitions on merits, or relegate the petitioners to the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, given the TGERC's powers under Sections 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Supreme Court judgments like Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. MB Power Limited and PTC India Limited, as argued by the respondents.