Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri TPS Harsha, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The present Writ Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31296 of 2023 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.

3. The appellants/writ petitioners filed the Writ Petition assailing the action of the respondent No.1 in levying and demanding Grid Support Charges (GSC) and interest thereon called as ‘surcharge’ for the Financial Years from 2002-03 to 2008-09 vide letter dated 29.08.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 as well as letter dated 05.10.2023 issued by the respondent No.4 and threatening to disconnect the electricity supply, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction apart from contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act’).

4. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition in brief are that the petitioner No.1/appellant company is a manufacturing industry, availed supply of High Tension (HT)/Low Tension (LT) power from the respondents by virtue of HT Agreement dated 14.03.1991 between the respondent No.5 and the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board read with Agreement for supply of Electricity at HT dated 22.05.2020 between the petitioner company and the respondent No.1.

5. It is contended that on account of certain financial difficulties, the respondent No.5 was not in a position to remit the amounts to the respondent No.1 for the supply of electricity by the respondent No.1 and that the petitioner company started paying the charges to the respondent No.1 for the supply of electricity since more than 12 years. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 is currently in liquidation and that as the petitioner company has been paying the amounts directly to the respondent No.1 for supply of electricity vide service connection No.SRN 487, the petitioner company reserves the right to continue to take steps to substitute/change the name of the petitioner company, instead of the respondent No.5. It is also stated that supply of electricity under Agreement dated 22.05.2020 for a maximum load not exceeding 1000 KVA is through the same line. The petitioners contend that even the letter dated 05.10.2023 enclosing letter dated 29.08.2023 was handed over by the officials of the respondents to the officials of the petitioners as the respondent officials were aware and acquiesced to the fact of the petitioners paying the electricity connection bills for SRN 487.

6. While so, the petitioner company received the impugned letters wherein the respondents have levied an amount of Rs.4,21,39,651/- (comprising Rs.1,03,57,419/- towards GSC charges for the financial years from 2002-03 to 2008-09 and a further sum of Rs.3,17,82,232/- towards interest termed as ‘surcharge’ computed from due date of respective billing month) by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v/s. M/s. Rain Calcining Limited ((2021) 13 SCC 674). It is pointed out that the impugned letters were addressed to the respondent No.5, while the payments for the electricity connection was being made by the petitioner company.

7. Petitioners allege that the petitioner company vide letter dated 02.11.2023 categorically brought to the notice of the respondents that no captive power plant was maintained by the respondent No.5 and as such the question of any GSC to be levied on the respondent No.5 does not arise. It is once again brought to the notice of the respondents that since the respondent No.5 is under liquidation, any claim against the respondent No.5 has to be filed before the Liquidator.

8. On the aspect of limitation, the petitioners contend that admittedly the demand for GSC was made for the first time on 29.08.2022 which is barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Act being a non-obstante provision explicitly bars recovery after a period of two years from the date on which the sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears.

9. Petitioners further submit that despite the petitioner company submitting detailed objections and explaining in detail that it is not liable to pay the impugned demanded amount, the respondents have not withdrawn the impugned letters and that the petitioner company apprehends that the respondents might disconnect the electricity connection causing enormous damage not only to the petitioner company and other sixteen group companies and their employees, but also Sanghi Temple and around 1000 families residing in Sanghi Nagar who rely on the said electricity connection. Hence, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition.

10. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is filed in the Writ Petition stating that the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board has released power supply on 17.03.1991 vide HT Service connection No.RRE 487 (now SRN 487) with a contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 5564 KVA in the name of M/s.Sanghi Polyesters Limited by clubbing 15 existing services (2 HT and 13 LT Services) as per the request of Consumer M/s.Sanghi Polyesters Limited and subsequently the CMD was increased to 8064 KVA after two and half months as per the agreement.

11. It is further submitted that the approval by the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) was accorded to HT Sc.No.SRN 487 (then RRE 487) in the name of M/s.Sanghi Polyesters Limited (representing a group of companies) for operating the DG sets of capacity 15000 KVA in parallel with the grid for their captive use. Hence, the petitioner company being the lead company of the entire group of companies is liable to pay the GSC and the interest (surcharge) as demanded in the impugned notice.

12. The respondents further contend that the petitioner company, having entered into agreement dated 22.05.2020 undertaking to pay all the charges in respect of the service connection bearing No.SRN 487, now cannot claim that as the respondent No.5 is under liquidation, the dues in respect of the said service connection cannot be demanded.

13. It is asserted that during the year 2001-02, the erstwhile APERC by order dated 08.02.2002 in O.P.No.1 of 1999 had determined the GSC and approved the levy of the same with effect from the billing month of March, 2002 on the captive power plants operating in parallel to grid at a rate equal to 50% of the prevailing demand charge for HT consumers on the difference between the total capacity of CPP in KVA and the contracted maximum demand in KVA with the licence and all other sources of supply. The petitioners and group companies have utilized the power from Diesel Generators which is captive power.

14. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, various captive generating plants filed CMAs before the High Court and this Court vide common order dated 02.05.2003 in CMA No.1104 of 2002 set aside the orders of the erstwhile APERC holding that APERC has no jurisdiction to determine GSC.

15. Questioning the said common order, the APTRANSC filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.8969 of 2003 and batch. By common judgment, dated 29.11.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeals setting aside the common judgment dated 02.05.2023 passed in CMA No.1104 of l2002 and batch upholding the order of the APERC with regard to GSC. Then, the erstwhile APERC continued to determine the GSC on the same basis as determined in O.P.No.1 of 1999 for the subsequent periods with a condition that the said charges are to be levied subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the erstwhile APERC, the respondent No.2 issued the demand notice dated 29.08.2022 duly enclosing detailed calculation sheets and requested for payment of the GSC.

16. It is further submitted that since the petitioner company had entered into a fresh agreement on 22.05.2020 wherein it has taken the responsibility to pay all the pending dues, the petitioner being a lead company of group of companies who have been availing the supply through HT SC No.SRN 487, is liable to pay the GSC as raised by TSSPDCL, and now cannot deny the liability under the impugned letters. The respondents thereby contend that the petitioners are liable to pay the amount of Rs.4,21,39,651/- (which includes Rs.1,03,57,419/- towards principal and Rs.3,17,82,232/- towards surcharge up to 31.07.2022) and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

17. The learned Single Judge taking into account the revised agreement dated 22.05.2020 entered by the petitioners, as per which the petitioner company has undertaken to pay all the charges in respect of the service connection bearing No.SRN 487, held that the petitioner is liable to pay the entire GSC along with interest as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.8969 of 2003.

18. The learned Single Judge, on the aspect of limitation under Section 56(2) of the Act, held that since the quantum became enforceable only upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the respondents issued demand within a reasonable period thereafter, the bar under Section 56(2) did not get attracted.

19. The learned Single Judge finally held that in view of the approvals, binding regulatory orders and the petitioner’s own undertaking under 2020 agreement, found no basis to issue a mandamus or to interfere with the impugned demand notices and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition.

20. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants own undertaking under the 2020 Agreement do not show that the 1st appellant-company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) is responsible for the GSC dues of the respondent No.5. Learned Senior Counsel contends that GSC can only be levied when there is a Captive Power Plant (CPP) and that the respondent No.5 did not have a CPP and as such, GSC could not have been levied on the appellant-company.

21. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the impugned order was passed without noticing the fact that the respondent No.5 is undergoing liquidation and its liability cannot simply be fastened on the appellant company merely because the appellant was part of the group companies as the appellant is a distinct and independent company and has never utilized any services to pay the purported GSC.

22. Learned Senior Counsel again contends that the respondents made the first demand on 29.08.2022 which is almost three years from the date of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Rain Calcining Limited (supra) and as such, bar under Section 56(2) stood attracted and the learned Single Judge ought to have seen pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which do not preclude the respondents from showing the amounts in the bills.

23. Learned Senior Counsel finally contends that there is a threat of disconnecting the electricity supply and accordingly, prays to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal.

24. Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, contended that the statement of grid account was issued in the name of SRN 487 which includes the group of companies only and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the impugned demand made by the respondents.

25. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the GSC was levied as per the methodology issued in O.P.No.1 of 1999 which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, tariff orders are required to be levied subject to the Supreme Court result.

26. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions urged by the parties and perused the record.

27. As per the HT agreement dated 14.03.1991 executed by M/s.Sanghi Polyesters Limited and the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Hyderabad, contains the list of 15 companies, wherein it was agreed to take the supply initially to a maximum load not exceeding 5564 KVA and connected load 15600 HP + 300 KW (LL) from the date of commencement of supply and with ultimate contracted demand of 8064 KVA with a connected load 21600 HP + 500 KW after two and half months from the date of release of supply and that they undertook that they shall not sell electrical energy obtaining under the agreement without the sanction in writing of the Board. It is further undertook to comply with all the requirements for the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the rules made thereunder, provisions of the Tariff, scale of miscellaneous and general charges and the terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the Board from time to time and agreed not to dispute the same.

28. Further, by agreement dated 22.05.2020 executed between M/s.Sanghi Polymers Private Limited and TSSPDCL, the appellant undertook to comply with all the requirements of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, provisions of the tariffs and the general terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the TSPDCL with the approval of the T.S. Electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time and agreed not to dispute the same.

29. In terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.4569 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No.8969 of 2003, the said judgment is binding on all stakeholders and has conclusively settled the issue relating to the levy and recovery of GSC. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities have levied the demand of Rs.4,21,39,651/- towards GSC and surcharge.

30. Electricity and water are vital and finite resources, the availability of which is essential not only for industrial and commercial activities but also for sustaining everyday life. Their generation, transmission and distribution involve significant public investment and infrastructure. It is therefore necessary to use such resources responsibly, efficiently and in accordance with law, ensuring that wastage is minimized and that lawful charges determined under the statutory and regulatory framework are duly paid.

31. Therefore, we do not find any error to interfere with the well reasoned findings of the learned Single Judge and therefore, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay the surcharge and cannot claim that the demand to pay GSC as barred under Section 56(2) of the Act.

32. WA.No.1467 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.