Common Order:

1. As all the writ petitions are with similar set of facts, the same are taken up together for consideration. For convenience sake, the facts in Writ Petition No. 583 of 2024 are taken up for discussion.

2. Learned Standing Counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy submits that the 1st respondent, who is running a printing press, has availed power supply under LT Cat. III (Industrial) though power supply to printing press falls under LT Cat. II (Commercial), therefore, they have reclassified the service connection into LT Cat. II, revised the bills and thereafter, assessed the back billing vide notice dated 11.08.2022 for an amount of Rs. 5,10,705/- (issued by the Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL). The final assessment order dated 29.08.2022 was passed by the Superintending Engineer of TSSPDCL, confirming the provisional assessment demand. It is contended, aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent approached the 2nd Respondent Forum and filed a complaint vide CG No. 329/2022-23/Habsiguda Circle. The 2nd Respondent Forum, by Award dated 09.03.2023, allowed the said complaint holding that reclassification of service connection of the 1st respondent was not correct and directed petitioners to withdraw the back billing case by restoring service connection of the 1 st respondent to its original category i.e. from LT Cat. II to LT Cat. III and also to adjust the amount of Rs. 255412/- paid by the consumer towards 50% of the back billing in the future bills.

               2.1. It is further contended that petitioners have only followed the provisions of General Terms & Conditions of Supply i.e. Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS and the tariff order issued by the Electricity Regulatory Commission, reclassified the Service Connection of the 1st respondent into LT Cat. II as the 1st respondent was not utilizing the power supply for manufacturing activity but was utilizing the same for the purpose of printing press, therefore, there was no illegality or irregularity in the same. It is contended that printing activity falls under Cat.II as per the tariff order; the 2nd Respondent has thus committed error in its Award and exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the reclassification of Service Connection of the 1st respondent and back billing the same.

3. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala assisted by Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent, based on the counter affidavit, has strenuously contended that the 1st respondent is an industry doing industrial activities and that printing is one of the components of the said industrial activities. It is further argued that petitioners have not followed the procedure contemplated in Clause 3.4.1 of G.T.CS., but have straightaway reclassified the Service Connection of the 1st respondent and issued back billing notice. He contends that as per Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS, petitioners are obligated to issue a notice of 15 days to the 1st respondent and only thereafter, the Service Connection shall be reclassified and back billing issued, if petitioners find that power supply was being unauthorisedly used under a different category than for which it has been granted.

               3.1. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the 1st respondent is doing the activity of manufacturing of BOPP Self Adhesive Tapes and thereafter, printing on the said tapes, it is nothing but a manufacturing/industrial activity. The 1st respondent has also filed a Certificate of Incorporation issued under the provisions of Companies Act to show that they are in the activity of manufacturing. The Government of Telangana, Department of Industries has recognized the 1st respondent unit as a small scale enterprise under MSMED Act, 2006 vide Udyam Registration dated 03.08.2020 for the line of activity of "Manufacturing and Processing of BOPP self adhesive tapes for plain and printed". It is further contended that CGRF, after taking note of all the material, has rightly come to the conclusion that the 1 st respondent is a manufacturing unit/industrial unit, therefore, categorizing their power supply from industrial category to commercial category was illegal. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the Award passed by the 2nd Respondent Forum and thus, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for petitioners, in reply, has drawn attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar(2010 (7) SCC 569), wherein at Para 18, it was held that "the report prepared by the inspecting officer is an act done in discharge of his duties and the same cannot straightway be disbelieved unless and until there was different and cogent material on record for arriving at a different conclusion". In Para 21 of the judgment, it is further held that "an inspection report is the document prepared in exercise of official duties of the Corporation and once an act is done in accordance with law, presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same and there is specific onus on the consumer/s to rebut, by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the inspecting officer is not correct".

               4.1. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the 2nd Respondent Forum, in its Award, has not discussed as to how the inspection report of the inspecting officer could be brushed aside nor any material was filed by the 1st respondent to the said effect, therefore, the Award passed by the 2nd Respondent is liable to be set aside.

5. Having considered the arguments put forth in the matter and having gone through the Award passed by the 2nd Respondent Forum and the material filed by petitioners vis-à-vis the 1st respondent, it is true that C.G.R.F. has not discussed about the inspection report nor any material contra to the inspection report was filed by the 1st respondent to show that inspection report was not correct and the same could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of reclassification of service connection of the 1st respondent.

6. At this stage, it is pertinent to reproduce Clause 3.4.1 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply which reads as follows:

               " Where a consumer has been classified under a particular category and is billed accordingly and it is subsequently found that the classification is not correct (subject to the condition that the consumer does not alter the category/purpose of usage of the premises without prior intimation to the Designated Officer of the Company), the consumer will be informed through a notice, of the proposed reclassification, duly giving him an opportunity to file any objection within a period of 15 days. The Company after due consideration of the consumer's reply if any, may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills if necessary even with retrospective effect, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such reclassification is needed, however, the period during which such reclassification is needed cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection".

7. Petitioners have not filed any document to show that they have issued notice, as required under Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS, to the 1st respondent. It is true that provisional assessment notice was issued back-billing the amount but no notice was issued as per Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS for reclassification of category of Service Connection of the 1st respondent. Petitioners tried to argue that no such notice is necessary in the case on hand as the 1st respondent, having obtained power supply for industrial category, was illegally found utilizing the same for commercial category; therefore, they themselves have altered the category/purpose of usage without prior intimation and hence issuing a notice as per Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS would not arise. This Court does not find merit in the said averment for the reason that the 1st respondent sought power supply for their business activity and petitioners, being electricity service provider, have themselves provided the said power supply by categorizing it under LT Cat. III (Industrial). Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of petitioners to issue notice and comply with the provisions of principles of natural justice before converting/reclassifying the connection of the consumer from Cat.III to Cat.II where the tariff is on higher side.

8. It is also to be noticed, CGRF has not considered the issue in proper perspective and based on the certificate and broacher furnished by the 1st respondent has straight away come to the conclusion that the activity of the 1st respondent is industrial and no reasoning is given by the 2nd respondent Forum in the impugned Award as to why the inspection report cannot be taken on its face value. This Court therefore, finds flaws in the Award of the 2nd respondent, therefore, the Award of CGRF is set aside. As petitioners have not followed Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS by issuing notice to the consumer before reclassification of the category, assessment of back-billing is also liable to be set aside.

9. The matter is remanded to petitioners for complying with the provisions of Clause 3.4.1 of G.T.C.S. by issuing notice of 15 days to the 1st respondent for reclassification of its Service Connection. Only after taking into consideration the objections/reply, if any filed by the consumer, in the event petitioners come to the conclusion that the service connection of the 1st respondent requires reclassification, they have to pass an order as per Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS and only thereafter, they would be entitled to alter the classification of category and suitably revise the bills.

10. Writ Petition No. 583 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

11. In view of the above, Writ Petitions No. 1445 of 2024 and 415 of 2024 also stand disposed accordingly, remanding the cases to petitioners for following the procedure under Clause 3.4.1 of GTCS. No costs.

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.