The Ombudsman exceeded jurisdiction by preventing surcharge collection as per regulatory provisions, affirming that tariffs under the Electricity Act must be adhered to.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent - Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No. 28 of 2023-24, dated 23.10.2023.

2. The case of petitioners – TGSPDCL is that the 1st respondent is a HT Consumer vide HT SC No. MDK 558 (SGR 558); power supply was released on 28.01.1993 and it was disconnected on 30.12.2009 due to non-payment of Current Consumption Charges. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent sought restoration of power supply under Sick Industries Revival Scheme. In that regard, petitioners and the 1st respondent entered into a separate HT Agreement on 10.05.2010 and power supply was restored on 11.05.2010 under the provisions of Sick Industries Revival Scheme. As the 1^st respondent has once again defaulted in payment of C.C. Charges, power supply was disconnected by petitioners on 09.08.2010. In spite of several notices, dues amounting to Rs. 12,30,603/- were not paid by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS in short), the HT Agreement of the 1^st respondent was terminated on 10.05.2012 ie. after completion of minimum guaranteed period of two years from the date of HT Agreement dated 10.05.2010.

2.1. Thereafter, petitioners initiated steps for recovery of amounts from the 1^st respondent under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 and APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 and issued Notice in Form ‘A’ dated 21.08.2018 for recovery of Rs. 9,15,530/- after adjusting the available security deposit of Rs. 3,25,254/-. As there was no response from the 1st respondent, Notice in Form ‘B’ was issued on 31.08.2019 for payment of Rs. 21,36,882/ which includes surcharge from the date of termination of agreement of the 1^st respondent. Petitioners have also addressed letter to the District Collector for recovery of electricity arrears under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, by attaching and sale of immovable property belonging to the 1^st respondent.

2.2. At that stage, the 1^st respondent made representations dated 19.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 for restoration of power supply and waiver of surcharge. As petitioners do not have power to waive surcharge, a letter was addressed to the 1st respondent dated 15.12.2021 to pay Rs. 21,36,882/-. The 1^st respondent then approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) by filing a Complaint vide No. CG/664/22-23/Sangareddy Circle, to set aside the notice issued under Revenue Recovery Act for an amount of Rs. 21,36,882/ and to waive penal charges including surcharge from the date of disconnection of power supply and also for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 3,25,254/-. The CGRF rejected the complaint of the 1^st respondent by Award dated 10.08.2023.

2.3. Aggrieved by the said rejection order of CGRF, the 1st respondent filed Appeal before the 2nd Respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) in Appeal No. 28/2023-24. The said Appeal was partly allowed by Award dated 03.10.2023, directing petitioners to collect Rs. 21,36,882/- as mentioned in notice issued in Form ‘B without levying any further surcharge. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy submits that for every delayed payment by the consumer, surcharge is imposed as per the orders issued by Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘the Commission’) and the 2^nd Respondent can only follow the said provisions of law and pass orders, whereas in the case on hand, the 2nd Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and directed petitioners not to levy any further surcharge beyond the notice issued in Form ‘B’ dated 31.08.2019. Therefore, the Award of the 2^nd Respondent is beyond its jurisdiction. He further contends that as the impugned Award passed by the 2nd Respondent is wit