Telangana High Court
K. Pratap Reddy vs The Superintending Engineer on 15 July, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 10499 OF 2026
15.07.2026
Between:
K. Pratap Reddy & another
..... Petitioners
And
The Superintending Engineer,
Operation Circle, Secunderabad
TGSPDCL & others
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
The image of justice in the popular imagination is
that of a woman who is blind-folded with a weighing scale in her
hand. The blindfold represents the idea of impartiality i.e. the
belief that the judge has to be completely neutral and decide the
matter before her without being influenced by any consideration
other than the merits of the case.
By Saurabh Kirpal (Chapter 11 – The Telecom
Counter-Revolution from FIFTEEN JUDGMENTS CASES THAT
SHAPED INDIA’S FINANCIAL LANDSCAPE)
Petitioner appears to be on the erroneous
assumption that symbolism of the blindfold denotes inability of
the justice delivery system to perceive or take cognizance of
2
manifest illegality. The contemporary conception of Justice, as
reflected in the recently unveiled Nyay Devatha by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, depicts Lady Justice with open eyes, signifying
that the law is neither oblivious nor indifferent, but remains
vigilant and sees every citizen equally while administering
justice without fear or favour. Further significant is the
replacement of the traditional sword with the Constitution of
India, symbolizing that the constitutional values, the rule of law,
and the protection of fundamental rights constitute the true
foundation of the justice delivery system, and not the punitive
legacy of colonial jurisprudence.
***
Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri B. Vishnu Rao, learned counsel for petitioners as
well as Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
Respondents 1 to 4 – TGSPDCL.
2. Petitioners seek to declare Demand Notice dated
03.02.2025 bearing Lr. No. SE/Op/Secbad/SAO/JAO
(HT)/D.No. 543/2025 and the consequential impugned order
dated 31.10.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent as illegal,
arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India and contrary to the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties)
3
Second Order, 2005 and the judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 14918 of 2006 and batch and to set aside the same;
consequently to declare that respondents are not entitled to levy
or recover Cross Subsidy Surcharge from petitioners for the
relevant period. They also seek to declare that the Electricity
(Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005 is applicable to
petitioners in respect of power availed from its generator,
M/s Rain Calcining Limited, under the consent granted under
Section 43A (1)(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and
MPWPA dated 04.11.1994 during the period FY 2005-06 to
2014-15 and respondents are not entitled to levy or collect CSS
from Petitioner for the said period in respect of such power.
Petitioners also seek to restrain Respondents from taking any
coercive steps, including disconnection of power supply against
petitioners in respect of the disputed CSS pertaining to
electricity service connection bearing No. SEC 624.
3. Petitioners’ case is that petitioner No.2 is engaged in
the services of hospitality and operates the well-known Hotel
‘Taj Tristar’ situated at Secunderabad, and the said hotel is run
in the premises belonging to Petitioner No.1 who is the owner of
the commercial complex known as ‘Seven Hills Plaza’. Petitioner
No.1 is a HT consumer of TGSPDCL vide HT SC No. SEC 624. It
4
is further stated that Demand Notice dated 03.02.2025 was
issued by Respondents demanding payment of Rs. 77,72,135/-
towards Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for FY 2005-06 to FY
2014-15. The representation made by petitioner to withdraw the
said demand was rejected by Respondents without
consideration.
3.1. Petitioners further contend that petitioner No.2
has been availing energy supply through open access from M/s
Rain Calcining Limited (6th Respondent) which is a generator
having authorisation issued by the State Government under
Section 43-A (1) (C) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It is
contended that petitioner No.2, having availed power supply
from the generator, which has got authorisation issued by the
State Government, is not liable to pay the C.S.S. in view of the
Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005, issued
by the Government of India.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment
in Writ Petition No. 14918 of 2006 and batch dated
19.12.2023, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the
Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005 and
quashed the demand notices which were subject matter of the
said Writ Petitions. It is further contended that in another Writ
5
Petition No. 25527 of 2025 wherein same generator was
involved, this Court, by Order dated 03.03.2026, quashed the
similar demand notice, therefore, on the same analogy sought
for quashing the demand notice impugned in the present Writ
Petition.
3.3. Petitioners’ case is that earlier, they filed Writ
Petition No. 7990 of 2025 challenging the very same demand
notice dated 03.02.2025; the said Writ Petition was disposed of
on 03.09.2025 granting liberty to petitioners to file detailed
objections and respondents were directed to consider the
objections and pass speaking order after affording opportunity
of personal hearing to petitioners. It is stated, they filed
objections which were rejected by respondents by order dated
31.10.2025, aggrieved by which petitioners filed Writ Petition
No. 35607 of 2025. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn due
to coercive action taken by respondents.
3.4. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that
petitioners are covered by the judgment of this Court in the
case of Rain Cements Ltd., wherein petitioner in that case was
drawing the power from the 6th Respondent and as petitioners
herein were also drawing power from the same generator, they
6
stand on the same footing and prays to allow this Writ Petition
and quash the demand notices.
4. Initially, this Court while admitting Writ Petition,
granted interim order on 08.04.2026 directing Respondents 1
to 5 not to take any coercive steps against petitioners till the
next date of hearing and the said order was extended from time
to time.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, based
on the counter, argued that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable as Respondents 1 to 4 are not juristic persons
but are designated cadre officials of Southern Power
Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGSPDCL) which
is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is an
electricity service provider in the southern part of the State of
Telangana. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests,
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector 1.
6. It is further contended by learned Standing
Counsel on the maintainability of the Writ Petition since the
petitioners have suppressed several material facts and
approached this Court with unclean hands. It is contended
1
(2003) 3 SCC 472
7
that Writ Petition No. 35607 of 2025 was filed by petitioners
impugning the very same proceedings and on opposing the said
writ petition, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner and
this Court dismissed the said writ petition, as withdrawn, by
order dated 23.1.2026 which has attained finality and hence
the present writ petition, for the very same cause of action was
not maintainable. It is further contended that after
withdrawing Writ Petition No. 35607 of 2025, petitioner
approached Respondents by agreeing to pay the entire
demanded amount of Rs. 87,14,036/- towards CSS and
requested for grant of instalments. By considering the request
of the petitioner, the 2nd Respondent (CGM of TGSPDCL) vide
letter dated 20.3.2026 has granted 12 monthly instalments to
the petitioner to make payment of the amount demanded. But
without paying any of the instalments, petitioner filed the
present writ petition on 30.3.2026 to declare the demand
notice dated 3.2.2025 and the consequential order dated
31.10.2025. It is contended that these aspects have been
suppressed by the petitioner purposely and therefore the above
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.1. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL further
contends that once the earlier Writ Petition filed by petitioner
8
in Writ Petition No. 35607 of 2025 was dismissed as
withdrawn, without liberty to file a fresh one, petitioner is not
entitled to file another writ petition with same cause of action.
He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior 2 wherein it has categorically been
held that Order 23 Rule 1 CPC would be extended to even
proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution and
the same would amount to res judicata.
6.2. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that
the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14918 of 2006
and batch is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as
there was no cause of action to decide the said Writ Petitions in
view of the order passed by the Electricity Regulatory
Commission permitting respondents for collection of C.S.S.
being set aside by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)
which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
pursuant to determination of CSS by E.R.C. in 2024, the
present demand notice was issued to petitioner. It is further
contended that even accepting that petitioner has drawn power
from the 6th Respondent which has got authorisation issued by
2
(1987) 1 SCC 5
9
the State Government under Section 43-A (1) (C) of Electricity
Supply Act, 1948, this Court cannot go into the said issue as
the present Writ Petition itself is not maintainable in view of
withdrawal of earlier Writ Petition filed by petitioner.
6.3. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited v. A.P.State
Regulatory Commission 3 has specifically stated that Section
43-A (1) (C) of the repealed Act does not permit direct sale of
power to individual consumers, hence, petitioner No.1 who was
an individual consumer, even if had supply prior to 2003 Act
coming into force, cannot take the benefit of Electricity
(Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2005 as the generator was not
permitted to sell the power directly to individual consumers by
holding authorization under Section 43-A (1) (C) of Electricity
Supply Act, 1948. Therefore, he contends that, viewed from
any angle, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner,
in reply, contended that petitioners are squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rain Cements
Limited, therefore, they are entitled to file the present Writ
(2004) 10 SCC 511
3
10
Petition, impugning the demand notice issued by Respondents.
It is contended that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn by
seeking liberty to file fresh writ petition and therefore the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport
Service (supra) do not apply to the case on hand and prayed
to allow the Writ Petition.
8. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent appeared
on line. He denied petitioner having availed any electricity
supply from the 6th Respondent. It is further submitted that
petitioner No.1 is not a scheduled consumer of the 6th
Respondent and there is no relationship between the 6th
respondent and Petitioner No.1.
9. Having considered the respective arguments, this
Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned
Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL that Writ Petition filed against
Respondent No. 1 to 4 is not maintainable as they are not
juristic persons to be sued against. Further, this Court has
also noticed that petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 35607 of
2025 impugning the very same proceedings, but it was
dismissed as withdrawn on 23.01.2026, as withdrawn. This
Court has never granted liberty to petitioner to file a fresh Writ
11
Petition, impugning the very same demand notice. On this
ground, the Writ Petition cannot sustain.
10. It is further to be seen that petitioner, after
withdrawing the earlier Writ Petition, approached Respondents
by filing representation dated 20.03.2026 requesting for grant
of instalments so that they can clear the entire C.S.S. dues. It
is seen that the 2nd Respondent has considered the said
request by proceedings dated 20.3.2026 and permitted
petitioner to pay the C.S.S. dues in 12 monthly instalments.
Petitioner, without paying any of the instalments, approached
this Court by filing this Writ Petition. However, the said fact
has not been disclosed in the present Writ Petition. This Court,
therefore, has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
petitioners suppressed material facts and approached this
Court with unclean hands. The contention of petitioners that
they are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court
rendered in the case of Rain Cements Limited, therefore, the
Writ Petition has to be allowed, is not accepted for this Court is
not convinced with regard to maintainability of the Writ
Petition itself. Hence without going into the merits of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
12
11. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with costs
of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) to be paid to the
Telangana State Legal Services Authority.
12. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall stand closed.
————————————-
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
15th July 2026
ksld
