M/S. Devashree Ispat Private Limited vs. The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s. Grey Gold Cements Limited and M/s Vijay Anand Kraft Papers (P) Limited, filed writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) determining Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioners argued that the TGERC determined the CSS without issuing proper notices and without following the prescribed procedure, thus violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that they were exempted from paying CSS based on prior government consent. The TGERC and TGSPDCL, the respondents, asserted that all procedural requirements, including issuing notices through registered post, website publication, and newspaper advertisements, were met. They further argued that an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was available and should be pursued.

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 opined that if the petitioners did not avail the opportunity to participate, the TGERC could not be blamed. The Court noted that the TGERC has the power to frame tariff determination terms and conditions under Section 61 and determine tariff under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It further observed that an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is provided for aggrieved parties under Section 111. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. MB Power Limited and PTC India Limited, 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 the Supreme Court's 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 similar issues were relegated to the appellate remedy, and subsequent Writ Appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) violated the principles of natural justice by determining the Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 without issuing proper notices to the petitioners and following the prescribed procedure, thereby rendering its order liable to be set aside? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the TGERC failed to issue specific notices to them before determining the CSS, violating Section 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the principles of natural justice. They argued that prior litigation had already set aside a similar order for procedural non-compliance. They also claimed exemption from CSS based on Section 43-A(1)(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and a Government of India order. They relied on judgments like Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents (TGERC and TGSPDCL) argued that notices were issued through registered post, published on their official website, and in newspapers on multiple occasions, fulfilling procedural requirements. They contended that the petitioners had the opportunity to participate but failed to do so. They also pointed to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and cited judgments in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. MB Power Limited and PTC India Limited.