HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 12440, 12456, 12778, 12784, 12808, 12810, 13117, 13119, 13122, 13127, 13128, 13656, 13669, 13674, 13684, 14189, 14192, 14193, 14466, 15108, 15109, 15111, 15114, 15115, 15137, 15221, 15272, 15756, 16610, 16758, 16763, 16885, 16925, 17092, 17168, 17290, 17293, 17296, 17323, 17357, 17485, 17502, 17510, 17824, 18070, 18121, 18133, 18146, 18164, 18183, 18311, 18345, 18742, 18750, 19000, 19312, 19474, 20551, 21662, 24520, 24712, 26197, 27694, 27756, 27875, 27912, 27925, 32615 OF 2024, 4466, 4468 AND 13883 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri D. V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri G. Chandra Shekar Rao, Sri M.P. Chandra Mouli, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri E. Ganesh and Sri Ch. Satyasadhan, Sri M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Hirendernath, Ms. Challa Kiranmayee, counsel representing M/s CKR Associates, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Advocate General, Sri P. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TGERC and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL.

2. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent-State Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P.No.76 and 77 of 2015, determining the Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for Financial Year 2015-16 at Rs.1.32 per unit (33 KV) and Rs.0.94 per Unit (132 KV), despite the 2^nd respondent’s proposal of Rs.0.30 and Rs.0.11 per Unit, respectively; is challenged on the ground of jurisdiction, contending that the Commission has no jurisdiction to formulate its own proposal, the Commission failed to follow due process, acted contrary to the orders of remand of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also violated the principles of natural justice. The said contention is controverted by Respondents 1 to 4 contending that they complied with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in that the Authorities issued draft proposals, held public hearings, and that petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. It is relevant to note, at this juncture, that under Section 62 of the Act, the Commission alone may determine tariff, including CSS and Section 111 provides an Appeal to Appellate Tribunal against such orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd.’s case (supra) held that tariff fixation is a quasi-legislative/technical function vested in specialized regulatory bodies and that Courts should discourage bypassing Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Sai RPP1, the Court emphasized that judicial review of tariff decisions is limited and the Courts would not interfere unless the impugned action of the Commission is arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the Act.

4. Though in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India2, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Industrial Consumers’ Association v. KSERC, it was held that there is no bar to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 despite existence of an alternative remedy, it may be noted that nature of grievance espoused plays a pivotal role in exercising writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy.

5. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, of statutory remedies through Writ Petitions. Likewise, in, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held as follows:

“ 128. We find that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition. The Constitution Bench of this Court in PTC [PTC India Ltd v. CERC,

1 (2011) 11 SCC 34

2 AIR Online 1996 SC 1268

3 (2024) 8 SCC 513

(2010) 4 SCC 603: 2010 INSC 146] has held that the Electricity Act is an exhaustive code on all matters concerning electricity. Under the Electricity Act, all issues dealing with electricity have to be considered by the authorities constituted under the sai