Telangana High Court
Kwality Ice Industry vs The State Of Telangana on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION NO.19617of 2025
THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Between:
Kwality Ice Industry
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and 6 others
...Respondents
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 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 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 2 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 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 17.01.2025 and 15.02.2025 and to follow principles of natural justice by giving an 3 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 opportunity for hearing. The DE, Charminar, in compliance of the orders dated 25.02.2025 in W.P.No.4741 of 2025, issued Letter No.DEE/Op/Charminar/Technical/ Hyd/D.No.2149/24, dated 11.03.2025 with a demand for payment of Rs.14,27,097/- instead of the disputed amount of Rs.1,10,817/-. The petitioner was directed to appear for hearing on 15.03.2025 and after one adjournment, on 22.03.2025, hearing was conducted. The DE, Charminar disposed of the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2025 directing to pay an amount of Rs.12,40,451/- upto March 2025 as per ledger balance. The petitioner approached Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum-2 (CGRF-2), challenging the order passed by the DE, Charminar by preferring C.G.No.03/2025-26/Hyderabad South Circle. An award was passed vide Order dated 31.05.2025 by CGRF to the effect that complaint is regarding non-implementation of High Court order and therefore, expressing inability to deal with said subject, the complaint was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached Vidyut Ombudsman vide Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 and the same was disposed of vide Award dated 30.06.2025. In Appeal No. 14 of 2025-26, the Vidyut Ombudsman directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,459/- in 10 equal 4 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 monthly installments from 05.07.2025 to 30.04.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition is preferred.
4. The petitioner's case is that payments made by a consumer as per Clause 7 of Code of Practice have priorities. Firstly, to adjust the payment towards arrears of CC charges, then towards arrears of additional charges, surcharge which is undisputed, then second priority towards payment of current month CC charges, followed by current month additional charges surcharge. While so, the respondents have repeatedly adjusted the payment made by the petitioner towards CC charges, towards disputed additional charges multiple times during the period between March 2005 to February 2025. In grounds of the writ petition, it is pleaded that this Court had deferred payment of arrears of Rs.1,10,817/- but the same was not considered as observed in this court's order dated 25.02.2025 in W.P.No.4741 of 2025. Further, it is case of petitioner that the Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider the adjustment of Rs.7,11,681/- in additional charges account in violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice on payment of bills by consumer. The adjustment of amount of Rs.7,11,681/- of the respondents' ledger shows due amount in CC charges, which was actually paid off every month and subsequently additional charges were levied on those impugned CC charges and thereby, respondents 5 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 accumulated the impugned additional charge of Rs.11,72,462/- illegally. The petitioner pleaded that additional charge of Rs.11,72,462/- claimed in the CC charge bills from March 2005 to February 2025 is not correct and in violation of court order dated 17.03.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.7217 of 2005. The Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider the amount paid by the petitioner for Rs.1,40,000/- on 21.04.2011 and Rs.36,740/- on 31.05.2013 due to disconnection of power supply illegally against disputed amount of Rs.1,10,817/-. The petitioner pleaded that the disputed amount of Rs.1,10,817/- is already paid and therefore, additional charges from 21.04.2011 to February, 2025 is incorrect. It is further contented that Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider this court's order dated 25.02.2025 in WP No. 4741 of 2025 in recording the fact that this Court's order dated 08.10.2014 in W.P.No.5451 of 2005 and recorded that respondents issued notice dated 20.10.2014 served in person by Registered Post without verifying the original documentary evidence of the respondents. It is claimed that the respondents created false documents to cover up their lacuna. In 2015, it is the petitioner who approached the respondents with written representation dated 19.06.2015 to comply the Court order in W.P.No.5451 of 2005, dated 08.10.2014. In view of the foregoing, the 6 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 petitioner prayed that the order of Vidyut Ombudsman and the DE, Charminar be set aside.
5. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is a consumer of electricity with the respondents. For the month of August 2002, a bill was raised for Rs.1,22,739/- under status 'door lock' i.e. whenever, a meter reader went, the premises of the consumer was closed and not available for taking meter reading. The average consumption was automatically taken and bill for an amount of Rs.1,22,739/- was raised. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Accounts Officer, General Revenue Circle, Mint Compound and the bill was revised by deducting Rs.11,922/- for an amount of Rs.1,10,817/-. However, due to system error, in September, 2002, the bill issued under Status '03' for Rs.(-)1,20,106/-(negative amount) as the amount was withdrawn twice. The system was showing excess balance and the same was reflected as negative arrears of Rs.1,30,019/-. The consumer did not pay the monthly charges but utilised the arrears with adjustment of excess amount during the period September, 2002 to April, 2003. This discrepancy was discovered during audit conducted in the month of February, 2005. There was shortfall amount of Rs.1,10,817/- and the same was added in the bill of February, 2005. Aggrieved by said bill, the 7 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.5451 of 2005, which was disposed of in the year 2014 with a direction to issue notice and then to give an opportunity of hearing before making the demand for payment. Accordingly, the respondents issued notice dated 20.10.2014 under acknowledgment. There was no response from the petitioner. The respondents issued another notice dated 15.05.2022 and the petitioner submitted representation dated 17.02.2022. The Assistant Accounts Officer gave details of the bills of the year 2002, which were rectified in the year 2005. The petitioner was requested to pay the pending amount with surcharge amounting to Rs.10,03,206/-. The petitioner did not pay said amount and therefore, the respondents disconnected the connection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4741 of 2025, which was allowed directing the respondents to consider restoration of power supply. Then, representations were submitted on 22.01.2025. In conformity with principles of natural justice, opportunity for hearing was given and notice dated 11.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner for a personal hearing on 22.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,27,097/- upto February 2025. The petitioner did not pay the amount of Rs.14,27,097/- but approached Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) for redressal. CGRF rejected the 8 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 complaint vide Order dated 31.05.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached Vidyut Ombudsman by filing Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 and said appeal was disposed of vide Order dated 14.04.2025 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,459/- to be paid in 10 equal monthly installments commencing from 15.07.2025. The petitioner again chose not to pay the installments and approached this court by filing writ petition. The respondents pleaded that all the facts and reasons given were considered by Vidyut Ombudsman while passing the impugned award. Further, the amount dues were ordered to be paid in 10 equal monthly installments. As such, there is no irregularity or illegality in passing of the award. The respondents pleaded that in a writ of certiorari, this Court cannot make a roving inquiry on facts decided by fact-finding authorities and can interfere only when there is an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record but cannot be an appeal. It is pleaded that the petitioner is simply trying to avoid payment by dragging the issue over past 20 years in spite of having complete details of the issue. As such, sought dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the respondents have failed to adhere to the directions given by this court in W.P.No.5451 of 2005, wherein the disputed amount of arrears of Rs.1,10,817/- are 9 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 deferred. Since said amount was deferred, no additional charges would be attracted on the disputed amount as the respondents did not give notice for said disputed amount nor passed any speaking order in compliance of orders of this Court. Further, the learned counsel for petitioner argued that an amount of Rs.7,11,861/-has been adjusted in additional charges in violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice. When the petitioner paid CC charges only in compliance of this court orders, the Vidyut Ombudsman failed to consider the adjustment of Rs.7,11,861/- with the respondents showing ledger due amount in CC charge account and additional charges were levied on the impugned CC charges and thereby, the respondents accumulated the impugned additional charges of Rs.11,72,462/- illegally. The petitioner argued that additional charges of Rs.11,72,462/- claimed on the CC charge bills from March 2005 to February 2025 is not correct and that same is in violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice on payment of bills by consumer. Further, the amounts paid by the petitioner from the year 2011 were not considered. The petitioner argued that no notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.5451 of 2005 dated 08.10.2014. Though a pleading is made about issuing notice on 20.10.2014, said notice was served without verifying documentary evidence. The respondents did not file the original documents of 10 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 registered posts first or in-person served notice along with written representation dated 19.06.2005.
7. The learned counsel for respondents argued that complete details about the manner in which arrears have been calculated are furnished to the petitioner in compliance of this court's order in W.P.No.5451 of 2005. An opportunity for hearing was given and thereafter, the D.E., Charminar has passed order dated 09.04.2025 directing to pay an amount of Rs.12,40,451/- upto March 2025 as per ledger balance. Subsequently, the petitioner herein challenged the same vide Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 before Vidyut Ombudsman and said appeal was disposed of by considering merits of the petitioner's case in detail by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,459/- against the Demand notice issued for Rs.14,27,097/- It is argued that facility was given to the petitioner to pay the arrears in 10 installments commencing from 15.07.2025. The petitioner herein did not comply with the order of Vidyut Ombudsman but approached this court. It is argued that the sole intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings which it had been doing from 20 years, in spite of providing details as to the manner in which the arrears have been accumulated. In that context, the learned Standing 11 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 Counsel for respondents relied upon order of this court in Writ Petition No.31163 of 2023, dated 22.07.2024, wherein, it is held as follows:
"8. In the absence of petitioner's challenge to the orders of CGRF which was affirmed by the Award dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No.2 of 2023, this Court is not inclined to delve upon the allegations levelled against the respondents by petitioner more particularly with respect to the contention of petitioner that in the CC bill for December, 2021, the Maximum Demand (MD)/Total Consumption (KVA) has been incorrectly shown and charged as 28852, whereas as per Settlement Statement, the highest recorded MD was 28316 as the said issue was already dealt with extensively and adjudicated upon by the authorities stated supra."
8. The above ratio is not applicable as the petitioner herein not only challenged the award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman but also challenged the award passed by CGRF and therefore, there is no issue about the writ petition being not maintainable. It is held that this Court is not inclined to delve upon the allegations levelled against the respondents in the CC Bill, when said issue has been dealt with extensively and adjudicated by the CGRF as well as the Vidyut Ombudsman. This finding is partly applicable to the facts of the present case as well in view of the respondents giving notice to the petitioner through D.E., Charminar with complete details of the manner in which arrears of Rs.14,27,097/- has 12 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 been arrived. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted and award was passed by the D.E. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the CJRF followed by Vidyuth Ombudsman. The Vidyuth Ombudsman has dealt with the issue in detail and reduced the arrears to Rs.9,86,459/- with a direction to pay the arrears amounts in 10 instalments. Therefore, it is argued that once the concerned authorities have dealt with factual aspects, this Court under the writ jurisdiction of certiorari cannot delve upon said issues in the manner of an appeal. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents relied upon the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others 1, wherein, it is held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly for issuing a writ of certiorari, the High Court does not exercise powers as an Appellate Tribunal. The only purpose of issuing a writ of certiorari is when the order is considered to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but not for the purpose of substituting its views with those of the inferior tribunal. Further, it is held that certiorari shall be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction i.e. excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction or to correct a patent illegality. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court with 1 (2023) SCCOnline SC 996 13 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 respect to judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority. It is argued that there is no allegation on the part of the writ petitioner with respect to either exercise of excess jurisdiction or non-exercise of jurisdiction or a patent error apparent on the face of the record. It is argued that the writ of certiorari may not be issued, in case the writ petitioner intends to challenge the finding of the Vidyut Ombudsman and the finding of the CGRF with respect to factual issues adjudicated. As such, contented that the current writ petition is not maintainable.
9. A perusal of the record shows that the demand notice which was challenged by the writ petitioner was issued in the year 2005. Said notice demanding payment of Rs.1,10,817/- was challenged in W.P.No.5451 of 2005. By way of interim protection, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.7217 of 2005 in W.P.No.5451 of 2005, dated 17.03.2005, directed the respondents to defer the payment as to arrears and directed the petitioner to pay monthly CC charges. Thereafter, the main petition was adjudicated by passing Order dated 08.10.2014 directing the respondents to issue notice and give an opportunity of personal hearing and then, to pass an order on the arrears to be paid. Thereafter, according to the respondents, notice was issued to the petitioner in compliance of this court's order on 20.10.2014, but there was no response from the petitioner. To the contrary, the case of 14 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 the petitioner is that the respondents did not comply with the order passed by this court and no notice was issued. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondents vide letter dated 19.06.2015 to comply the order of this Court in W.P.No.5451 of 2005, dated 08.10.2014. But there was no response up to 15.02.2025. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.02.2025, the power supply to petitioner was disconnected. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.4741 of 2025 was filed and the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order of this Court in W.P.No. 5451 of 2005. In compliance of said order, the D.E., Charminar issued letter dated 11.03.2025 for Rs.14,27,097/- showing the arrears amount up to February, 2025. According to the petitioner, said amount ought to have been for Rs.1,10,817/- but not Rs.14,27,097/-. In this context, it is alleged that there is a direction to attend hearing on 15.03.2025 and upon concluding the hearing, the D.E., Charminar directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.12,40,451/- up to March 2025 as per ledger balance. The petitioner contends that their plea to deduct the amount paid in the interim was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached CGRF, which disposed of the matter without adjudicating merits of the case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner then approached Vidyut Ombudsman and said authority has passed the 15 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 impugned order. According to the petitioner, there is violation of Clause 7 of Code of Practice on payment of bills.
10. At first, the petitioner herein approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5451 of 2005 challenging the inclusion of a sum of Rs.1,13,340/- under the head of arrears and additional charges in the bill dated 08.03.2005. This Court vide order dated 08.10.2014 deferred the arrears of Rs.1,10,817/- in the said bill granting liberty to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner with regard to payment of arrears, within a period of three months. Due to non-compliance of said order and respondents issuing disconnection notice dated 15.02.2025, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4741 of 2025, wherein, this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner pertaining to restoration of power supply to petitioner's unit within a period of one week. However, the respondents without complying the said order too had straight away issued notice dated 11.03.2025 demanding payment of Rs.14,27,097/-. In the said notice, there is a mention about the issuance of notice on 20.09.2014, however, that notice is not pursuant to orders of this Court dated 08.10.2014 in W.P.No.5451 of 2005. In the said notice, it is mentioned that in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P.No.4741 of 2005, dated 25.02.2025, the respondents requested the 16 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 petitioner to attend personal hearing. Even though there was a direction of this Court to defer the arrears in the monthly bill issued on 08.03.2005, there was claim of Rs.11,72,462/- by DE., Charminar, with calculation of additional charges, ACD surcharge, ED interest and R & C penalties which is against the Clause 7 of Code of Practice. However, the CGRF did not consider the complaint of petitioner. In appeal also, the Vidyut Ombudsman without considering the Clause 7 of Code of Practice modified the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by DE., Charminar directing the petitioner to pay Rs.9,86,459/- by deducting 50% of the total additional surcharge amount of Rs.2,53,992/- from Rs.12,40,451/- that was demanded by DE., Charminar.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have adjusted the monthly CC charges and subsequent payments made by the petitioner towards arrears which was deferred by this Court that too again levying additional charges on them, which is against Clause 7 of Code of Practice. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman is liable to be set aside.
12. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned award dated 30.06.2025 in Appeal No.14 of 2025-26 passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman and the respondents are directed to restore the 17 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 power supply to the petitioner unit forthwith. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to D.E., Charminar to consider the monthly payments and interim payments that were made by the petitioner from March, 2005 to February, 2025 as specified in Clause 7 (Adjustment of Bill Amount) of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) Code of Practice on payment of bills by consumers and to take further steps.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 10.04.2026 GVL 18 RY,J W.P_19617_2025 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA W.P.No.19617 of 2025 Date: 10.04.2026 gvl 19