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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13700

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Kwality Ice Industry – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.19617of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Nishitha
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Energy, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy

The High Court may issue a writ of certiorari to set aside an Ombudsman's award if the authority fails to apply statutory regulations governing the priority of payment adjustments for electricity bills, specifically when charges are wrongly levied on arrears previously deferred by judicial orders.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Maintainability - When an authority fails to consider statutory regulations regarding the adjustment of payments (Clause 7 of Code of Practice), the High Court can interfere with the award of an Ombudsman - The court does not act as an Appellate Tribunal, but examines if the order is palpably erroneous or shows failure to exercise jurisdiction. (Paras 8, 11)

(B) Electricity - Billing Disputes - Adjustment of payments - Arrears - Electricity regulatory standards mandate specific priorities for payment adjustments (current charges vs. arrears) - Charging additional charges on deferred arrears, which remain under judicial litigation, is impermissible and contrary to the Code of Practice. (Paras 4, 6, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an industrial consumer, faced billing disputes dating back to 2005. The High Court had previously issued interim orders deferring the payment of a contested arrears amount of Rs. 1,10,817/-. The respondents subsequently accumulated additional charges and penalties on this disputed amount over two decades without complying with previous judicial orders. The Vidyut Ombudsman ordered the petitioner to pay a reduced sum, sparking this writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondents wrongly adjusted monthly payments towards disputed arrears, leading to illegal accumulation of additional charges, violating the Code of Practice on Payment of Bills. The impugned award was set aside for failure to consider these statutory accounting priorities.

Issues: Whether the additional charges levied on deferred arrears and the manner of payment adjustment by the respondent authorities were in compliance with the Code of Practice and previous court directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The adjustment of payments against arrears that have been explicitly deferred by court order, and the subsequent levying of additional charges on such amounts, are in clear violation of the statutory Code of Practice; therefore, such administrative actions merit interference by way of a writ of certiorari.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned award set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. relief sought by the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2)
2. historical facts and procedural history of billing disputes. (Para 3 , 5 , 9)
3. petitioner's contentions regarding incorrect billing and adjustment violations. (Para 4 , 6)
4. scope of writ jurisdiction and maintainability of challenge. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's analysis of non-compliance with statutory payment rules. (Para 10 , 11)
6. final order and directions for remand. (Para 12)

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ … to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling record of Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 on the file of Hon’ble Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana and set aside the award dated 30.06.2025 along with the order of the DE, Charminar passed vide letter No.DEE/ OP/ CHARMINAR/ TECHNICAL/ HYD/D.NO.07/2025 dated 04.04.2025 including claim of Rs.11,72,462/- pertaining to additional charges claimed by the Respondents from March, 2005 to February, 2025 and direct to issue revised C.C.Charges bills from March, 2005 to February, 2025 in compliance of Clause VII 7.1 (i)(ii) of Regulation 5 of 2016 and …..”

2. Heard Ms. Nishitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy for respondent No.1 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6. Perused the entire record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a consumer of respondent Nos.2 to 6 of LT III Category service connection bearing No.M3009491 situated at Door No.19-2-211/C, Ramnastupura, Near Zoo Park, Telangana. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of ice blocks. The respondents issued CC charges bill for billing month of March, 2005 dated 08.03.2005 other than monthly CC bill of Rs.52,455/- showing an amount of Rs.1,10,817/- as arrears and levied an amount of Rs.2,523/- as additional charges without furnishing any details and without any prior notice. The petitioner paid the CC charges bill as on February, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court vide Writ Petition No.5451 of 2005 and an interim order dated 17.03.2005 was passed in W.P.M.P.No.7217 of 2005 of W.P.No.5451 of 2005, wherein, the petitioner was directed to pay only monthly CC charges of Rs.52,455/-. Prima facie, it was determined that the claim of Rs.1,10,817/- is wrong billing and the same was to be verified at the time of final hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner paid only CC charges after deducting additional charges which were levied illegally every month in violation of this Court's order. The respondents raised CC charge bills from the month of March 2005 to February 2025, levying additional CC charges bills every month without furnishing any details of their claim of additional charges. The respondents have levied massive amount of Rs.11,72,461/- towards additional charges from March, 2005 to February, 2025. The writ petitioner during the pendency of W.P. No.5451 of 2005, in addition to monthly CC charges, paid amount of Rs.80,000/- on 05.11.2011, Rs.60,000/- on 21.04.2011, Rs.18,000/- on 28.03.2013 and Rs.18,740/- on 31.05.2013 i.e., total amount of Rs.1,76,740/- against the disputed amount of Rs.1,10,817/-. Vide order dated 08.10.2014, this Court in W.P.No.5451 of 2005 directed the respondents to defer demand of Rs.1,10,817/-, to issue a notice to the petitioner within a period of 3 months, to give an opportunity of submitting representation and then to pass appropriate orders for recovery of arrears. From 08.10.2014 up to 15.02.2025, the respondents have not taken any steps to issue notice. Left with no alternative, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4741 of 2025 about the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in compliance of orders dated 08.10.2014 in W.P.No.5451 of 2005. This Court disposed of W.P.No.4741 of 2025 with a direction to consider the representation dated 22.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of impugned notice dated 17.01

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