HC Orders Fresh Hearing on Rs 1.36 Cr Power Dispute

Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka and Justice Lakshmi Narayana Alishetty, directed that no coercive action be initiated on power dues amounting to Rs 1.36 crore against a private hotel and resort, and directed a fresh hearing by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC). The appellant, Manjeera Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., challenged a demand notice issued by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TSSPDCL). The case pertains to a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs 1,36,73,255 on account of cross-subsidy surcharge (CSS) for the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06. According to the appellant, despite regular payment of electricity bills raised under a valid agreement, the southern discom abruptly stopped the power supply in August 2014. Consequently, the appellant entered into a contract for power supply respondent authorities, against whom no dues were ever recorded. The CSS demand was based on orders passed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) for multiple financial years. Following a public notice issued on August 1, 2017, the TGERC passed fresh orders on April 6, 2018. However, those orders were quashed by the High Court in 2018 for violation of the principles of natural justice and non-compliance with Clause 16(ii) and Clause 17 of the 2015 Regulation. The court then remanded the matter for a fresh determination after giving proper notice to affected parties and directed the commission to conclude the process within six months, a deadline that expired in August 2020. Despite this, no fresh notice was issued to the appellant, and an order dated August 30, 2024, fixing the CSS was passed unilaterally. Based on that order, the February 2025 demand notice was issued, warning of disconnection in case of non-payment. Considering these facts, the bench directed the appellant to file a representation before the concerned respondents. The panel accordingly disposed of the writ appeal.

HC faults RTC for violating natural justice

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside a recovery notice issued by the RTC Medak depot demanding Rs 2.12 lakh from the owner of a hired bus involved in a road accident, on the ground that the action was taken without issuing notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by T. Mallaiah, owner of the bus hired by the then-APSRTC, who challenged the November 2012 demand notice issued by the depot manager. The notice sought to recover half the decretal amount deposited in a motor accident case concerning an April 2009 road accident involving the petitioner’s bus, which led to the death of two persons. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the bus was covered under a valid insurance policy and that the APSRTC, being the deemed owner for operational purposes, was liable. It was contended that as per Supreme Court precedents, once the vehicle is insured, the liability falls on the insurance company and not the vehicle owner. The petitioner contended that the impugned demand was issued without notice or hearing and was thus illegal and without jurisdiction. The APSRTC contended that the petitioner, being the actual owner of the hired vehicle, was jointly liable and could not escape responsibility. It also argued that as an appeal (MACMA) was pending, the recovery was in accordance with directions for depositing a part of the award amount. The judge held that the action of the depot manager in issuing a direct recovery order without affording any opportunity to the petitioner was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. The judge relied on Supreme Court judgments to reiterate that even in the absence of an express statutory provision, a hearing must be provided when substantive rights are affected. Accordingly, the judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned notice, and observed that the authorities were free to initiate proceedings afresh by following due process.

HC orders review of cancelled hall permission

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, extended the status quo orders in a case challenging the cancellation of permission for constructing a function hall in Annaram of Sangareddy district. The judge disposed of a writ petition filed by Bombadi Sanjeeva Reddy, questioning the legality of the order issued by the executive officer, Annaram gram panchayat, on September 23, 2019, which revoked the previously granted construction permission dated January 11, 2019, for the function hall in Survey Nos. 252 and 261. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and without jurisdiction, claiming that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. After hearing the matter, the judge directed the petitioner to submit all the required documents for construction to the competent authority. The authority was instructed to examine the documents and pass appropriate orders within 30 days from the date of receipt. Further, the judge extended the status quo order in the matter and clarified that no construction activity should be undertaken until the petitioner obtains a clearance certificate from the concerned waterbody authorities.

Temple renovation panel challenged in HC

The Telangana High Court stayed any operations by the renovation committee constituted for Sri Karigiri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, located at Swaroopnagar, Uppal. The judge clarified that any action taken by the committee shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Justice E.V. Venugopal admitted a writ petition filed by the temple authorities challenging the constitution of the renovation committee by the government. The petitioner contested the memo issued in April 2025 by the endowments department, alleging that the formation of the committee was illegal, arbitrary, and a colourable exercise of power. The petition further alleged that the committee was constituted by circumventing legal procedures, in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and the Constitution of India. After hearing the parties, the judge directed the government pleader representing the endowments department to file a counter affidavit before the next date of hearing. The matter is expected to be heard after summer vacation.