M/S. Devashree Ispat Private Limited 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 specific financial years (FY 2013-14 and 2014-15). The petitioners argued that they availed power supply through open access and purchased power from private generating companies, and therefore, no CSS should be levied. They also contended that the generators had consent under Section 43-A(1)(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, exempting them from CSS. The petitioners further alleged that the TGERC failed to issue proper notices and follow natural justice principles, rendering its orders illegal. The TGERC and TGSPDCL (Southern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited) argued that all procedural requirements, including issuing notices and publishing hearing dates, were met. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare the TGERC's orders and consequential demand notices as arbitrary and illegal.

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, publishing on its official website, and in newspapers on multiple occasions, intimating the dates of hearing. The Court noted that if the petitioners failed to participate, the TGERC could not be held responsible. The Court referred to Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003, empowering the Commission to frame tariff determination terms and conditions, and Section 62, empowering it to determine tariff upon application by a licensee. The Court, citing Supreme Court judgments in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. MB Power Limited and PTC India Limited, stated it 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 to the petitioners. Therefore, in light of the Supreme Court's law and the facts, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court also noted a similar issue dealt with in Writ Petition No. 12440 of 2024 and batch, where the parties were relegated to appeal, and subsequent writ appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue proper notices to the petitioners before determining the Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, thereby rendering its order liable for setting aside, particularly in light of Section 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the TGERC did not issue notices to them before determining the CSS and failed to follow the prescribed procedure, making the order liable to be set aside. They relied on Section 171 of the 2003 Act regarding service of notices and cited a previous High Court order in Writ Petition No. 21936 of 2018 that had set aside a similar order for non-compliance with regulations and lack of notice. They also argued that alternative remedies were not a bar to entertaining writ petitions. Revenue/State's arguments: The TGERC and TGSPDCL argued that all necessary steps were taken, including issuing notices by registered post where possible, publishing on their official website, and in newspapers on multiple occasions, thus fulfilling the procedural requirements. They asserted that if petitioners did not avail the opportunity to participate, the TGERC could not be blamed. They also pointed to the statutory remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.