HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has dismissed two writ petitions challenging Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) demands raised by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGSPDCL), holding that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and approached the court. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka imposed exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh each on the petitioners, directing that the amounts be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.
The petitions were filed by K Pratap Reddy and M/s Sundar Taj Mahal Hotels Pvt Ltd, and M/s B Sunder Rao Hotels Pvt Ltd, which operate the Taj Tristar Hotel at Secunderabad and the Taj Mahal Hotel at Abids, respectively. The petitioners sought quashing of demand notices issued by TGSPDCL for payment of CSS relating to the financial years 2005-06 to 2014-15, contending that they were exempt under the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005 as they had allegedly procured power through open access from M/s Rain Calcining Ltd, a generator authorised under Section 43A(1)(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
The petitioners relied on earlier High Court judgments, including the decision in WP No 14918 of 2006 and batch and the ruling in Rain Cements Ltd, to argue that the CSS demands were illegal.
TGSPDCL opposed the petitions, contending that they were not maintainable as they had been filed against designated officials rather than the company, a juristic entity.
The distribution company further argued that both petitioners had earlier challenged the same demand notices, withdrawn those writ petitions without obtaining liberty to file fresh petitions, and thereafter sought instalment facilities for payment of the disputed dues. These facts, TGSPDCL submitted, were deliberately suppressed in the present proceedings.
The court accepted the preliminary objections and held that the petitions were not maintainable. It observed that once the earlier writ petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to institute fresh proceedings, the petitioners could not re-agitate the same cause of action. The Court also noted that the petitioners had sought instalment facilities to clear the CSS dues and, in one case, even paid the first instalment before filing the present writ petition, yet failed to disclose these developments.