SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 143

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
M/s. Radha Smelters Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/31163/2023



A consumer cannot seek relief in a writ petition without challenging prior adjudicated decisions regarding billing disputes.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 42 - Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Interim Balancing and Settlement Code for Open Access Transactions (Regulation No. 2 of 2006) - Writ Petition challenging excessive billing for December 2021 amounting to Rs.1,15,00,006/- - The petitioner claimed incorrect Maximum Demand (MD) was charged as 28852 KVA instead of 28316 KVA as per Settlement Statement. The Court found the petition misconceived as it did not challenge the prior orders of CGRF and Vidyut Ombudsman. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 9)

(B) Consumer Rights - The petitioner, facing excessive billing, alleged threats of disconnection for non-payment, and sought adjustment of the excess amount paid. The Court noted that the issue had been previously adjudicated and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1, 8)

(C)

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the billing history was consistent with statutory provisions and dismissed the petition for lack of challenge to prior decisions. (Paras 7, 9)

(D)

Issues: The main issues were whether the billing was excessive and the validity of the Maximum Demand charged. (Paras 6, 8) (E)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that without challenging the prior awards, the petitioner could not seek relief, as the issues had already been adjudicated. (Paras 7, 8) (F)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to adjust the amount of excessive billing for the month of December, 2021 i.e. Rs.1,15,00,006/- along with interest at 24% from the date of payment made by petitioner till today to the next billing month.

2. The conspectus of petitioner’s case is that petitioner is involved in manufacturing of steel products such as Billets and MT bars and has been operating since 2007.

Petitioner has HT Service connection provided by the respondents herein, bearing No. MDK-1060 with CMD of 24 MVA, voltage of 132 KVA, having a Main, Check and Standby meter bearing Serial number as follows: Y0265840 (Main meter), Y0265845 (Check Meter), Y0265850 (Stand by Meter). Petitioner is a Cross-subsidizing Consumer; it has been charged higher price of Electricity rate to lower prices for other consumers.

Petitioner was one of the highest revenue earners for respondents for Medak Division and also for the State of Telangana (in steel manufacturing sector) with monthly bill of approximately Rs. 18,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore only).

Petitioner also procures power from power exchange (LEX) through short-term open access. It is stated that under HT agreement, maximum power used in one particular time block will be considered for the purpose of billing. Petitioner receives a monthly H.T.C.C. Bill from the Respondents. The CC bill is prepared on the basis of load survey test. Along with CC bill, petitioner also receives Settlement of Energy drawn from open access / DISCOM and MRI dump Statement (hereinafter referred to as 'Settlement Statement’) every time (whenever there is power purchased from the open access) showing the power utilized on every day in that particular billing cycle month. After going through the CC bill for December, 2021 and the corresponding Settlement Statement for December, 2021, petitioner noticed that in the CC bill, Maximum Demand (MD) / Total Consumption (KVA) has been incorrectly shown and charged as 28852, whereas as per the Settlement Statement, the highest recorded MD was 28316.

According to petitioner, for December 2021, as per the Settlement Statement, maximum demand for any day over Coincident Maximum Demand (CMD) was on 16.12.2021 which is 4316 KVA and after adding 24000 KVA which is the CMD for petitioner, total comes to 28316 KVA, which is mentioned in the Settlement Statement. Petitioner stated that it is clear from the Meter Recording Instrument (MRI) Dump dated 16.12.2021, the maximum recorded demand was 28532 at 06:15 hrs., which is also mentioned in the Settlement Statement. It is submitted that from this consumption recording of 28532, open access credit of 216 KVA of petitioner is to be adjusted and the net KVA to be charged would be 28316 KVA. As such, petitioner stated that billing for December, 2021 should have been done for 28316 KVA for petitioner.

Petitioner further stated that they had made representation on 17.01.2022 to the Senior Engineer (Medak), Senior Accounts Officer (Medak), Divisional Engineer Medak and Chief General Manager/Finance/Revenue i.e. Respondents 4 and 5 to revise the bill, so that petitioner can make the correct payment but there was no response from respondents and in turn, petitioner was forced by the respondents to make excessive payment with the threat of disconnection of their service line, if they fail to make such excessive payment. It is stated that petitioner addressed another representation to the 1 st respondent on 19.02.2022, but again, there was no response. It is stated that with an imminent wrongful threat of disconnection of their electricity connection which would put them to irreparable harm and might also lead to explosion or account of furnaces at petitioner's factory premises being shut down forcefully, petitioner was compelled to make payment, as demanded by respondents between 25.01.2022 and 31.01.2022. It is stated that payment of excess amount was made under protest and was made only because disconnection

                                                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                  1
                                                  2
                                                  3
                                                  4
                                                  5
                                                  6
                                                  7
                                                  8
                                                  9
                                                  10
                                                  11
                                                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                  supreme today icon
                                                  logo-black

                                                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                  Please visit our Training & Support
                                                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                  qr

                                                  Scan Me!

                                                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                  whatsapp-icon Back to top