O R D E R:

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of Respondents 1 to 3 in levying and demanding Grid Support Charges along with surcharge/interest for an amount of Rs. 6,53,35,307/- comprising principal Grid Support Charges of Rs. 1,58,94,548/- and surcharge/interest of Rs.4,94,40,759/- calculated up to 09.10.2023, vide Lr.No.SE/OP/NLG/SAO/HT/D.No.128/23 dated 06.10.2023 issued by the 3^rd Respondent and further directing Petitioner to pay the said amount within 15 days, failing which Petitioner was threatened with disconnection of power supply to its HT Service Connection No. SPT-105, contending that the said action is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Hyderabad and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacture of cement at its manufacturing unit situated at Ramapuram, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana. They manufacture high quality Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC), which are marketed under the brand name "Priya Cement". The manufacturing activity carried on by Petitioner is energy-intensive in nature and requires continuous and uninterrupted power supply. Accordingly, Petitioner entered into a High Tension Agreement with the 1^st Respondent Distribution Company for availing power supply at 132 KV and was granted HT Service Connection bearing No. SPT-105.

2.1. During 2002 to 2009, the State experienced acute power shortages and severe restrictions and control measures were imposed by the then Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL), presently TGSPDCL. In order to meet its essential energy requirements and to ensure continuity of operations during such power cuts, restrictions and blackout periods, Petitioner installed two High Tension Diesel Generator sets, namely HT DG-1 of 6.5 MW (8125 KVA) and HT DG-2 of 6.0 MW (7500 KVA), aggregating to a total installed capacity of 15,265 KVA. It is stated that the said DG sets were installed purely as standby and backup arrangements and were never intended or designed for continuous operation. The operation of DG sets was confined only to the periods of R&C measures and blackout situations. Despite the exorbitant cost of operating diesel generators, which was substantially higher than regular consumption charges, Petitioner was constrained to operate the same only to maintain minimum plant operations during the R&C period.

2.2. It is stated that in 1999-2000, the then Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (APTRANSCO) filed an Application before the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) seeking determination of Grid Support Charges to be levied on consumers operating Captive Power Plants. The APERC initially did not permit levy of Grid Support Charges for the period 1999-2000 or thereafter. However, by order dated 08.02.2002 in OP No.1 of 1999, the erstwhile APERC determined Grid Support Charges for consumers operating Captive Power Plants in parallel with the grid. The Grid Support Charges were determined on the difference between the installed capacity of the Captive Power Plant in KVA and the Contracted Maximum Demand in KVA with the licensee and other sources of supply, at a rate equal to 50% of the prevailing demand charges applicable to HT consumers. It was further provided that in cases where Captive Power Plants exported power to APTRANSCO, the capacity dedicated to such export was also required to be deducted.

2.3. It is stated further that several consumers and stakeholders, including Petitioner, challenged the APERC order dated 08.02.2002 before this Court, inter alia, on the ground that APERC lacked jurisdiction to determine Grid Support Charges. By a common judgment d