HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 5970 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This writ Petition is filed questioning the Award dated 29.01.2025 in Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25 on the file of the 1^st respondent (Vidyut Ombudsman) and to set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Retail Supply Tariff Orders issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission and General Terms and Conditions of Supply.

2. The case of petitioners is that the 3^rd respondent- consumer has a service connection bearing No. 562500810 under LT-III (Industrial) category with a contracted load of 99 HP. During March and June 2020, the consumer exceeded the contracted load by utilising 100.06 HP and 104.90 HP respectively. In accordance with Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS), any service recording demand above 75 KVA attracts HT-I (11 KV) tariff. Accordingly, billing under HT-I category and posting of HT flag were made lawfully and in conformity with the applicable tariff provisions. It is stated that Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Greater Hyderabad Area, after examining the consumer's complaints in CG Nos. 27 and 38 of 2020-21, by order dated 30.09.2020, dismissed the same holding that billing under HT-I (11 KV) Industrial category was in strict accordance with the provisions of the Retail Supply Tariff Order and the GTCS. The Forum observed that recorded demand having exceeded 75 KVA, billing under HT tariff was justified and that consumer could not seek to be billed under LT-III category.

2.1. Aggrieved by the CGRF order, consumer preferred Appeal No. 17 of 2020-21 before the Hon'ble Vidyut Ombudsman, Telangana State, which was allowed by Award dated 15.01.2021. Petitioners challenged the said Award before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9257 of 2021. This Court, by common order dated 10.12.2024, set aside the Award on the ground that it had been passed by a person not qualified to hold the post of Ombudsman as per Regulation 3.6 of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Vidyut Ombudsman and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2015. Subsequently, after appointment of a qualified Ombudsman, the consumer again filed Appeal No. 42 of 2024-25. The Ombudsman, by the impugned Award dated 29.01.2025, directed petitioners to remove the HT flag, revise the electricity bills for the period from April 2020 to September 2023 restricting HT billing only to the portion of demand recorded above 75 KVA, and to refund the balance amount with interest at 9% per annum.

2.2. Petitioners state that the Ombudsman gravely erred in interpreting Clause 7.5.3 of the Retail Supply Tariff and Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS. It is contended that the language of Clause 7.5.3 clearly mandates that once the recorded demand exceeds 75 KVA, the entire consumption from that month onwards shall be billed under HT-I (11 KV) tariff until the unauthorized load is removed and certified by the competent authority. The clause does not permit partial billing confined to the excess demand alone. It is further contended that Clause 12.3.3.3 of the GTCS stipulates that where the connected load exceeds 75 HP (subsequently revised to 100 HP), service shall be billed under HT-1 (11 KV) category for the entire period until the excess load is rectified. It is argued that these provisions are intended to ensure load regulation, safety of network infrastructure and system stability, therefore, cannot be diluted or interpreted selectively.

2.3. Petitioners assert that the Ombudsman's interpretation effectively rewrites the Tariff clause by restricting the HT billing to the portion exceeding 75 KVA, contrary to the express wording of the provision. It is further stated that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to direct refund of collected amounts and award interest at 9% per annum, as such reli