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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 59518

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Rocksand Mineral Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Southern Power Distribution Company of TG Ltd Compound – Respondent
WP 22830/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.22830 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER:- 18.12.2025 BETWEEN Rocks and Mineral Private Limited, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND Southern Power Distribution Company, Hyderabad & 3 others.

… Respondents ORDER:-

1. This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection bearing No.SGR 943 CAT-HT.IA, dated 16.07.2025, without giving any notice to the petitioner, except by citing impugned Memo No.SE/OP/SGR/SAO/AAO/IAO- HT/D.No.671/24, dated 15.07.2025, issued by respondent Nos.2 & 3 and by deliberately misrepresenting the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13145 of 2025 while the order passed by respondent No.4 in Appeal No.44 of 2024-25, dated 05.02.2025 is still subsisting and without following the prescribed procedure contemplated under law, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection by setting aside the impugned Memo issued by 2nd respondent.

2. Heard Smt.K.Archana, learned counsel representing Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGTRANSCO representing the respondents.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner herein is a registered private limited company running into the business of Crushing, Mining and producing M-Sand & Aggragates and has obtained power supply service connection from the respondent authorities by paying the requisite fee. On 11.11.2021, the respondent authorities have issued HT Assessment calculation notice to the petitioner by quoting some incriminating points which are observed in the inspection. Pursuant to the said notice, after completion of 15 days stipulated time, the respondents have disconnected the power supply of the petitioner’s service connection on 27.11.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31567 of 2021 and obtained interim stay subject to condition of the petitioner making payment of Rs.25 lakhs in two installments which is on or before 05.01.2022. The petitioner paid the said amount and the respondents restored the service connection of the petitioner. Finally, W.P.No.31567 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) within a period of 4 weeks and as per the said direction, the petitioner made a complaint to CGRF on 25.10.2024 for which the CGRF has passed final order dated 07.12.2024 directing the Distribution Licensee to initiate suitable departmental disciplinary action against the employees in the facts and circumstances of the case. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.44 of 2024-25 before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent passed an Award dated 05.02.2025 directing the respondents to prepare short billing without surcharge and without interest for 3 years preceding the date of inspection i.e. from 05.11.2019 to 21.09.2021 and the petitioner was granted time to pay the amount in 12 equal monthly installments and in default of such payment, the respondents are at liberty to realize the balance amount in lumpsum as per Rules in vogue. The respondents are further directed to file compliance report within 15 days from the date of receipt of Award.

4. Aggrieved by such Award, the respondents filed W.P.No.13145 of 2025 and this Court upon hearing of the case, directed the petitioner -TRANSO to release the power supply of the petitioner upon payment of 1st installment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred C.M.P.No.4 of 2025-26 in Appeal No.44 of 2024- 25 before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent had rejected the said petition as it is not maintainable. It is stated by the petitioner that due to disconnection of power supply to the petitioner’s service connection,

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top