Baddam Srinivas Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the f,cllowing: ORDER
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 25236OF 2o26 CNR No. 5 Between: Baddam Srinivas Reddy & others Pctitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Enerry Department & othcrs Respondents Reserved on 2A.Oa.2026 Pronouneed on : 2I -O9.2026 Uploaded on :. 21.09.2026 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for Petitioncrs and Sri T. Rajiniikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri A- Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL on behalf of Respondents 1 and 4, Sri P.N. Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 3. 2. Petitioners, who are 1 1 in number, claim to be aggrieved by the public notice dated 23.06.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent in I.A. No' 4 of 2026 in O. P No. 24 of 2O2O'
- proposing revision of the pre-iixed levelised tariff etpplicable under the PM-KUSUM Component-A Scheme from Rs. 3.13/kWh to Rs. 2.98/kWh, under change of 1aw clause (change in rpplicable GST rate from l2oh to 50 as recommended by the 56s meeting of the GST Council held in New Delhi in SiePtember 2025 2.1 . Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners contend that all the petitioners have entered into power purchase agreements with Rcspondents 3 and 4 pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd Respondent d'ated 22'O4'2025 in OP No 32 of 2025. w'hereirt the 2nd Respondent - Commission has approved procurement of 4000 MW under Component-A Scheme of PM KUSUM. It is the contention of petitioners that originally' PM KUSUM (Pratlhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Uttham Mahabhiyan) Scheme was launched by the Ministry of New and Rcnewable F)nerry, Gove rnme nt of India on O8 03 20 19 to promote ren€wable energy, provide assured income to farmers and cnhanc,: encr&v securitl'r' lt is submitted that under Component-fi, eligible farmers and other entities are encouraged to establish grid-connected solar power plants and supply electricity to the Distribution Licensees under long 1-erm Power Purchase Agt'eements (PPAs). Ir- is further contended t-hat the 2"d
- 3 Respondent Commission initiated suo-motu O.P. No. 24 of 2O2O for determination of a pre-fixed levelised tariff for solar power projects of O.5 - 2 MW under Component-A of the PM KUSUM Scheme, with public notice dated 22.9.2O2O inviting objections and by Order dated O2.O1.2021, the Commission determined a pre-lixed levelised tariff of Rs. 3.13/kwh for 25 years lor solar projects of 0.5 - 2 MW under Component-A based on normati.ve parameters including 19yo CUF , capital cost and financing assumptions. It is further contended that based on this tariff hxed by the 2"d Respondent Commission, petitioners and others (who are not before this Court) have ventured to invest huge amounts for setting up of their own solar power generating industries.
Learned Senior Counsel further contends that when the tariff of Rs. 3.13/kwh was fixed, the GST rate on solar modules was 5%o and the same was thereafter increased to 72o/o w.e.f. October 2021,. Therefore, petitioners and other ryots sought for enhancement of tariff in view of increase in GST, but however, the 2"d Respondent, while determining the prc-fixed levelised tariff in OP No. 24 of 2O2O, held that any alteration of tarilf may upset either of the parties and therefore, the 2"d Respondent - Commission, in its wi om, iras not revised the - .l tariff nor altered the same, but relained at the same pre-fixed levelised tariff cf Rs 3.13/kwh
Learned Senior Counsel further contends that Respondents 3 and 4 DISCOMs have filed I A No 4 oI 2026 t'n OP No. 24 of '2O2O for revision of pre-fixed levelised tariff i e' frorn Rs.3.13/]:Wh to Rs. 2.98/kWh under change of law clause in view of redu,:tion of GST rate from 12 to 57o, as recommended by the GST Council in its 56th meeting lL is contended that the pre-fixed levelised tariff of Rs 3,1-3/kWh was hxed bv the 2"d Respondent Crmmission on O2'O7'2021, on which date GST was 57o on the solar modules and tn'hen the GST was increased Irom 5 Lo l2ott in October 2021, the claim made by ryots for enhancement of lariff was not considered by the 2'd Respondent. Howcver, when GST rate has now come down from 12 to 5"k, the DISCOMs, taking advantage of the same' have filed the present interlocutory application for reduction of tariff from Rs.3.13/'kWH to Rs.2 98/kwh lt is contended that a reading of the Application filed by the DISCOMs' in I A No 4 of 2026 does not show that DISCOMs have sought for reduction of tariff from Rs.3.13/kwh to Rs.2.98/kWh, but the notice issued by tho 2'd Respondent - Commission for its public hearing reflects the said price which shows that the 2"d Respondent has - 5 pre-determined the price which was not mentioned in the Application hled by the DISCOMs. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel lhat the 2"d Respondent does not have the foundation of juri ictional fact to embark upon the enquiry to conduct the public hearing based on the Application made by the DISCOMs and insisted that the 2"d Respondent may file its counter. He therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Petition by declaring the action of the 2"d Respondent in proceeding with hearing of I. A. No. 4 of 2026 in OP No. 24 of 2O2O as one without having foundation of juri ictional fact and to set aside the proceedings in I.A. No. 4 of 2026. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the;on'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar a. tJnlorr. of Indial and the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2O2O and batch dated 15.O3.2O22. 3. This Court, by order dated 03.08.2026, permitted the 2"d Respondent to go ahead with the public hearing but directed not to pass any linal order. Thereafter, it is seen that the public hearing took place on the scheduled date and many publc spirited persons and represenlatives of several solar power projects, including petitioners, have participated in the public ' (2006) scc Supp. 290
- 6 hearing and otjecled for passrng any orders, reducing the pre- hxed levelised tariff, as sought by the DISCOMs'
Leareed Additional Advocate General contended that the 2nd Respolldent, being the statutory authority constituted under the trlectricity Act, 20O3, has power not only to regulate but also to adl udicate upon issues within the parameters of the Act. Ir is contended that the 2"d Respondent being the adjudicatory zruthority having ample power under the Act' rvould take into consideration all the aspects that have been brought to its :rotice inclrlding the petition filed by the DISCOMs and the objec-ions, if any, can be raised by petitioners in the public hearinp, fixed by the 2nd Respondent and not before this Court. It is contended that the 2"d respondent cannot be curtailed at the thrcshold from proceeding with the l-rearing of an applicatiorL filed by the DISCOMS and adjudicate the said petition on me rits.
Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No 2 states that t ee Electricrty Regulatory Commission being an adjudicatory authoritY DISCO Ms, un:uld not on LA. No. 4 of 2026 flled bY the inasm uch as [he samc in a position to file its colrnter, wourld reveal the stand of the 2nd even belbre taking anY decision on be Respondent (lommission
- 7 merits and the same would not be in the interests of the case to be decided by the lna Respondent.
Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 hled counter and raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition which was filed challenging the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent proposing to fix/conduct public hearing on 04.08.2026. It is contended that there are more than 900 farmers, who have entered into power Purchase Agreements with the. DISCOMs for establishment of solar power projects under PM KUSUM Scheme and prayed that this Court may not interfere with the juri iction of the 2"d Respondent based on the Writ petition filed by 1t persons, that too by approaching this Court one day before the scheduled date of public hearing. It is contended that the issue l_hat is being dealt with by the 2"a Respondent is purely a technical issue which shall not be interdicted by this Court at the threshold. It is contended that there is no reason for the petitioners to apprehend that the 2"d Respondent would not follow the procedure while adjudicating I.A. No. 4 of 2026.
It is contended that petitioners have approached this Court only on apprehensions, and there is no other basis for them to maintain the Writ Petition. It is further contended
- 8 thataftertheI],ISCOMshavefiledlANo.4of2026forreduction of pre fixed levelised tariff, detailed calculations have been hled before the 2'd Respondent in view of reduction ol GST from 12 to 57o and thr:refore, the 2"d Respondent has mentioned the price of Rs.2.!r8/kWh in its notice. Il is contended that there is no illegality in the 2"a Respondent merely informing the price of Rs.2.98/kWh rvhich is now sought by the DISCOMs and it does not amount to approval or adjudication of 2"d Respondent before hearinp; the Application lt is contended that the said figure was arrived at based on the calculations furnished by the DISCOMs and not suo-motu by the 2"d Respondent Commission' Therefore, the apprehension of p.ii,io''t'" is wholly unfounded and the 2'd Respondent should be allowed to decide the issue on merits and in case either the petitioners or the DISCOMs are aggrievcd by ztny dccision rendcred by the 2"d Respondent, the same can aluays be questioned before the appropriate Forum and it is not a case where this Court would interfere at the threshold. It is contended that only in the absence of juri iction and authorlty, this Court would interfere in any matter that tc o if appropriate writ such as Writ of Prohibition is sought for, brtt in the case on hand, what is prayed for is a Writ
- 9 of Mandamus. Therefore, viewing from any angle, thc Writ Petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same.
The entire case of petitioners is that I. A. No. 4 of 2026 ltled by the DISCOMs in O.P.No. 24 of 2020 cannot be taken up for adjudication by the 2"d Respondent nor can the tariff be reduced by ths 2na Respondent from Rs. 3.13/kWh to Rs.2.98/kWh based on change in law i.e. reduction of GST. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners does not dispute the juri iction of the 2"d Respondent to decide the issue on hand but contends that there was no foundation of juri ictional fact to embark upon the enquiry undertaken by it in I A No. 4 of 2026. Once it is accepted that the 2na Respondent Commission, under the Electricity Act, 2003, is empowered to decide the tariff under Sections 61, 62 &, 64 of the Acr, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interdict the 2"d Respondent from discharging its functions under the Act. The DISCOMs have filed I.A. No. 4 of 2026, to be adjudicated by the 2nd Respondenr - Commission. The 2"d Respondent, in its wi om, issued notice of public hearing for adjudication of the said lnterlocutory Application. Therefore, petitioners can always participate in the public hearing and oppose the Application filed by the DISCOMs. Mere filing of Applicatiorl by the DISCOMs or taking
- 10 up the said 1\pplication for hearing by the 2nd Respondent Commrssion itself cannot be a ground for petitioners to invoke the extraordinary juri iction of this Court under ArLicle 226 of the Constitutir>n, contendjng that the 2"d Respondent has pre determined to rcduce the tariff from Rs. 3.13,/kwh to Rs.2.98/kWh as sought by the DISCOMs. The figure of Rs. 2.98/kwh, as explained b5; learned Standing Counsel for Respondent I o 3, has come into picture in vierv of the calculations fi- rnished by the DISCOMs to the 2"d Respondent, after filing the interlocutory application. Even though the same was specificall'y' mentioned in the counter filed by the DISCOMs, the same was rrot rebutted by petitioners by Iiling any reply.
As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel lor Rcspondents 3 and 4 that as against more than 900 solar power projec--s who have entered into Power Purchase Agreements q,ith the DISCOMs, only 11 are before this Court and at the instance of 11 persons, thrs Court is not inclined to interfere with :he adjudication process being undertaken by the 2nd Respondent Commission. Moreover, petitioners have participated in the public hearing conducted by the 2nd respondent on 04.O8.2026. l'his Court, therefore, holds that petitioners have not made out any case for thrs Court to - ll interfere with the adjudicatory authority of the 2nd Respondent. As it is accepted by petitioners that they have participated in the public hearing conducted by the 2"a Respondent, this Court has no doubt that the 2"d Respondent would take into consideration all the aspects including the objections raised by petitioners and others, before coming to a just conclusion and may render its decision. This Court sees no grounds to interfere in the matter. The above writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 10. . Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shail stand closed. s. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT EGI //// SE ION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRI P.SRI RAM, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER' SC FOR TGNPDCL [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUC] one CC to SRI P.N.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR Tcqlg IOPUC] Two CCs to ADDL. ADVdCAiL''cfUennl, High bourt for the State of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies 2. ? 4 5 t) 7 W BSR MS
HIGH COURT DATED: 21109t12026 ORDER WP.No.25236 ot 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1tA 6. S T416: 21 sEPzifl$ ,} oo q\' q ol^
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.