[ 3300 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 25236 OF 2026

Between:

1. Baddam Srinivas Reddy, C/o. late Baddam Venkat Reddy, Aged about 59

years, Occ.Farmer, R/o. PIot No. 40, Neighbourhood Villas, Kompali road,

Gundlapochampally, Gundlapochampalle, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Telangana,

500014

2. Durvasa Reddy Pakala, S/o. Pakala Chandra Reddy, aged about 46 years,

Occ.Farmer, R/o.1-89, Manakondur Mandal, Annaram, Karimnagar,

Telangana, 505469.

3. Maggidi Sudharshan, S/o. Maggidi Gangaram Aged about 49 years,

Occ.Farmer R/o. Flat No. 405, Block-A Arms Burg Ultimo Apartments

Jeedimetla Village, Lakshmi Ganga Enclave, Near Konark Hospital, Suchitra

Junction, KV Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500067

4. Bokka Sunil Reddy, C/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ.Farmer,

R/o. 1-52, Nimma Nagar Village, Mulug Mandal, Ramachandrapuram,

Mulugu, Telangana - 506349

5. Sudini Giridhar Reddy, S/o. S. Thimma Reddy Aged about 57 years, Occ.

Private Business Rl/o Plot No-21, Sairamnagar, Patol Colony Near Reddy

Bavan, Karmanghat, RangaReddY

6. Lankala Vijay Kumar Reddy, S/o. L. Panduranga Reddy Aged about 65 years,

Occ.Private business R/o. 17-1-A-19l1 9-A, Old Santhosh Nagar Colony,

Saidabad, Hyderabad

7. Maddi Ashok Reddy Shp, M. Vittal Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ.Private

Business Rlo. 16-2-1401312, akber bagh, Malakpet, Amberpet, Hyderabad,

Telangana- 500036

8. Mula Pramod Kumar, S/o. Mula Somi Reddy Aged about 51 years, Occ.

Farmer Rl/o. 31-3-'1248, Parimala Colony, Behind Teja lnternational School,

Waddepally, Hanmakonda, Warangal, Telangana, 50600'1 .

9. Manohar Reddy Sudini, S/o. S.Durga Reddy, Aged about 74 years, Occ:

Private Business, Rl/o. H.No.8-2-243l82A13561A, Flat No.302, Raghu Ram

Vally, Road NO.12, MLA Colony, Banjarahills, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

a-

'l0.Malreddy Lokeswari, Wo. Malreddy Panduranga Reddy, Aged about 57

years, Occ. Fousewife R/o. 2-6511 , DHANASIRI, WC. Dhanasiri, PO.

Dhanasiri, Sub District. Zahtabad, Diskict. Medak, Telangana,PlN Code.

502221 .

1'1 . SoodiniLaxma Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 71 years,

Occ.Private Business R/o. P. No. 545-4, Sal Roja Krishna Vihar, Road No.

86, Behind Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

..,PETITIONERS

AND

'1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy

Department, Sercretariat, Hyderabad - 500022.

2. The Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) Vidyut Niyantran

Bhavan, G.T.S. Colony, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad - 500045

3. The Southern F'ower Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGSPDCL),

represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, 6-1-50,

Mint Compouncl, Hyderabad - 500063.

4. The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited,

(TGNPDCL), re presented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate

Office, H.No. 2-5-31 12, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal

- 506001

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under lticle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased

to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of

Mandamus declaring that the TGERC proceeding With l.A. No.4 of 2026 in

O.P.No.24 ot 2020 without having the foundation of Jurisdictional Fact to embark

upon the enquiry as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice

and consequently set aside the proceedings in the l.A. No. 4 ot 2026 in O.P. No. 24

of 2020

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

Petition under Sr:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in suppcrrt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all

further proceedings o'the Respondent No.2, pursuant to notice dated 23.06.2026

issued in l.A. No. 4 of 2026 in O.P. No. 24 of 2020, inviting objections to the

proposed tariff revisior, and the revised Public Notice dated 04.07.2026, by which

-

Respondent No.2 rescheduled the hearing to 04.08.2026 while continuing the

proposal to revise the tariff, pending disposal of the writ petition.

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

Between:

The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGSPDCL),

represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, 6-1-50,

Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500063.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. Baddam Srinivas Reddy, C/o. late Baddam Venkat Reddy, Aged about 59

years, Occ.Farmer, R/o. Plot No. 40, Neighbourhood Villas, Kompali road,

Gundlapochampally, Gundlapochampalle, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Telangana,

5000'14

2. Durvasa Reddy Pakala, S/o. Pa'kala Chandra Reddy, aged about 46

years, Occ.Farmer, R/o.'l -89, Manakondur Mandal, Annaram, Karimnagar,

Telangana, 505469.

3. Maggidi Sudharshan, S/o. Maggidi Gangaram Aged about 49 years,

Occ.Farmer Rl/o. Flat No. 405, Block-A Arms Burg Ultimo Apartments

Jeedimetla Village, Lakshmi Ganga Enclave, Near Konark Hospital,

Suchitra Junction, KV Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500067

4. Bokka Sunil Reddy, Cio. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 44 years,

Occ.Farmer, R/o. 1-52, Nimma Nagar Village, Mulug Mandal,

Ramachandrapuram, Mulugu, Telangana - 506349

5. Sudini Giridhar Reddy, S/o. S. Thimma Reddy Aged about 57 years, Occ.

Private Business R/o Plot No-21, Sairamnagar, Patol Colony Near Reddy

Bavan, Karmanghat, RangaReddy

6. Lankala Vijay Kumar Reddy, S/o. L. Panduranga Reddy Aged about 65

years, Occ.Private business R/o. 17-1-A-19/19-A, Old Santhosh Nagar

Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad

7. Maddi Ashok Reddy Shp, M. Vittal Reddy, Aged about 64 years,

Occ.Private Business No. 16-2-1401312, akber bagh, Malakpet, Amberpet,

Hyderabad, Telangana- 500036

8. Mula Pramod Kumar, S/o. Mula Somi Reddy Aged about 51 years, Occ.

Farmer R/o. 31-3-1248, Parimala Colony, Behind Teja lnternational

School, Waddepally, Hanmakonda, Warangal, Telangana, 506001.

9. Manohar Reddy Sudini, S/o. S.Durga Reddy, Aged aboutT4 years, Occ:

Private Business, R/o. H.No.8-2-243l82A13561A, FIat No.302, Raghu Ram

Vally, Road NO.'12, MLA Colony, Banjarahills, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

't0.Malreddy

Lokeswari, Wo. Malreddy Panduranga Reddy, Aged about 57

years, Occ. Housewife Rlo. 2-6511, DHANASIRI, WC. Dhanasiri, PO.

EU

Dhanasiri, Strb District. Zahtrabad, District. Medak, Telangana'PlN Code'

502221.

ll.Soodinilaxma Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 71 years,

Occ.Private Elusiness R/o. P. No.545-A, Sal Roja Krishna Vihar, Road No'

86, Behind Acollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

12. The State ol Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022.

13. The Telangirna Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) Vidyut

Niyantran Bhavan, G.T.S. Colony, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad - 500045'

14. The Northe'n Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited,

(TGNPDCL), represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,

Corporate r)ffice, H.No. 2-5-3112, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta'

Hanamkondzr, Warangal - 506001

r

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in suppor,: of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the

lnterim order dated 3.8 2026 passed in l.A. No. 1 o1 2026 in W.P. No. 25236 ot 2026,

pending disposal of the writ petition.

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026

Between:

The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited,

(TGNPDCL), represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate

Office, H.No. 2-5-3112, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal

- 506001

...PETITIONER

AND

1. Baddam Srinivas Reddy, C/o. late Baddam Venkat Reddy, Aged about 59

years, Occ.Farmer, R/o. Plot No.40, Neighbourhood Villas, Kompali road,

Gundlapochampally, Gundlapochampalle, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Telangana,

500014

2. Durvasa Reddy Pakala, S/o. Pakala Chandra Reddy' aged about 46

years, Occ.Farmer, Rl/o. 1 -89, Manakondur Mandal, Annaram, Karimnagar,

Telangana, Ii05469.

3. Maggidi Surjharshan, S/o. Maggidi Gangaram Aged about 49 years,

Occ.Farmer R/o. Flat No. 405. Block-A Arms Burg Ultimo Apartments

Jeedimetla Village, Lakshmi Ganga Enclave, Near Konark Hospital,

Suchitra Junction, KV Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500067

-

4. Bokka Sunil Reddy, C/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 44 years,

Occ.Farmer, R/o. 1-52, Nimma Nagar Village, Mulug Mandal,

Ramachandrapuram, Mulugu, Telangana - 506349

5. Sudini Giridhar Reddy, S/o. S. Thimma Reddy Aged about 57 years, Occ.

Private Business R/o Plot No-21, Sairamnagar, Patol Colony Near Reddy

Bavan, Karmanghat, RangaReddy

6. Lankala Vijay Kumar Reddy, Sio. L. Panduranga Reddy Aged about 65

years, Occ.Private business R/o. 17-1-A-19l19-A, Old Santhosh Nagar

Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad

7. Maddi Ashok Reddy Shp, M. Vittal Reddy, Aged about 64 years,

Occ.Private Business Rlo. 16-2-1401312, akber bagh, Malakpet, Amberpet,

Hyderabad, Telangana- 500036

8. Mula Pramod Kumar, S/o. Mula Somi Reddy Aged about 51 years, Occ.

Farmer R/o. 31-3-1248, Parimala Colony, Behind Teja lnternational

School, Waddepally, Hanmakonda, Warangal, Telangana, 506001.

9. Manohar Reddy Sudini, S/o. S.Durga Reddy, Aged aboutT4 years, Occ:

Private Business, R/o. H.No.8-2-243182A13561A, Flat No.302, Raghu Ram

Vally, Road NO.12, MLA Colony, Banjarahills, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

l0.Malreddy Lokeswari, Wo. Malreddy Panduranga Reddy, Aged about 57

years, Occ. Housewife Rlo. 2-6511, DHANASIRI, WC. Dhanasiri, PO.

Dhanasiri, Sub District. Zahtabad, District. Medak, Telangana,PlN Code.

502221.

ll.Soodinilaxma Reddy, S/o. Ramaehandra Reddy, Aged about 71 years,

Occ.Private Business R/o. P. No.545-4, Sal Roja Krishna Vihar, Road No.

86, Behind Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

12.The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022.

1 3. The Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) Vidyut

Niyantran Bhavan, G.T.S. Colony, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad - 500045.

14.The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

(TGSPDCL), represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,

Corporate Office, 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500063.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the

interim order dated: 03-08-2026 in WP. No. 25236 of 2026 by dismissing the above

writ petition, with costs, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SRI RAGHURAM, Sr. COUNSEL,

SRI P.SRI RAM

F

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T.RAJINIKANTH REDDY,

ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL /

GP FOR ENERGY

Counsel for the Resp,rndent No.2: SRI P.N'ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR TGERC

Counsel for the Resp,cndent No.3: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY,

SC FOR TGSPDCL

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER'

SC FOR TGNPDCL

The Court made the f,cllowing: ORDER

-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF

TELANGANA

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 25236OF 2o26

CNR No. 5

Between:

Baddam Srinivas Reddy & others

Pctitioners

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Enerry Department & othcrs

Respondents

Reserved on 2A.Oa.2026 Pronouneed on : 2I -O9.2026

Uploaded on :. 21.09.2026

ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for Petitioncrs and

Sri T. Rajiniikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General

and Sri A- Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for

TGNPDCL on behalf of Respondents 1 and 4, Sri P.N. Arun

Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Sri

N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent

No. 3.

2. Petitioners, who are 1 1 in number, claim to be

aggrieved by the public notice dated 23.06.2026 issued by the

2nd Respondent in I.A. No' 4 of 2026 in O. P No. 24 of 2O2O'

-

proposing revision of the pre-iixed levelised tariff etpplicable

under the PM-KUSUM Component-A Scheme from

Rs. 3.13/kWh to Rs. 2.98/kWh, under change of 1aw clause

(change in rpplicable GST rate from l2oh to 50 as

recommended by the 56s meeting of the GST Council held in

New Delhi in SiePtember 2025

2.1 . Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners contend

that all the petitioners have entered into power purchase

agreements with Rcspondents 3 and 4 pursuant to the order

passed by the 2nd Respondent d'ated 22'O4'2025 in OP No 32 of

2025. w'hereirt the 2nd Respondent - Commission has approved

procurement of 4000 MW under Component-A Scheme of PM

KUSUM. It is the contention of petitioners that originally' PM

KUSUM (Pratlhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Uttham

Mahabhiyan) Scheme was launched by the Ministry of New and

Rcnewable F)nerry, Gove rnme nt of India on O8 03 20 19 to

promote ren€wable energy, provide assured income to farmers

and cnhanc,: encr&v securitl'r' lt is submitted that under

Component-fi, eligible farmers and other entities are encouraged

to establish grid-connected solar power plants and supply

electricity to the Distribution Licensees under long 1-erm Power

Purchase Agt'eements (PPAs). Ir- is further contended t-hat the 2"d

-

3

Respondent Commission initiated suo-motu O.P. No. 24 of 2O2O

for determination of a pre-fixed levelised tariff for solar power

projects of O.5 - 2 MW under Component-A of the PM KUSUM

Scheme, with public notice dated 22.9.2O2O inviting objections

and by Order dated O2.O1.2021, the Commission determined a

pre-lixed levelised tariff of Rs. 3.13/kwh for 25 years lor solar

projects of 0.5 - 2 MW under Component-A based on normati.ve

parameters including 19yo CUF , capital cost and financing

assumptions. It is further contended that based on this tariff

hxed by the 2"d Respondent Commission, petitioners and others

(who are not before this Court) have ventured to invest huge

amounts for setting up of their own solar power generating

industries.

2.2. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that

when the tariff of Rs. 3.13/kwh was fixed, the GST rate on solar

modules was 5%o and the same was thereafter increased to 72o/o

w.e.f. October 2021,. Therefore, petitioners and other ryots

sought for enhancement of tariff in view of increase in GST, but

however, the 2"d Respondent, while determining the prc-fixed

levelised tariff in OP No. 24 of 2O2O, held that any alteration of

tarilf may upset either of the parties and therefore, the 2"d

Respondent - Commission, in its wisdom, iras not revised the

-

.l

tariff nor altered the same, but relained at the same pre-fixed

levelised tariff cf Rs 3.13/kwh

2.3. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that

Respondents 3 and 4 DISCOMs have filed I A No 4 oI 2026 t'n

OP No. 24 of '2O2O for revision of pre-fixed levelised tariff i e'

frorn Rs.3.13/]:Wh to Rs. 2.98/kWh under change of law clause

in view of redu,:tion of GST rate from 12 to 57o, as recommended

by the GST Council in its 56th meeting lL is contended that the

pre-fixed levelised tariff of Rs 3,1-3/kWh was hxed bv the 2"d

Respondent Crmmission on O2'O7'2021, on which date GST

was 57o on the solar modules and tn'hen the GST was increased

Irom 5 Lo l2ott in October 2021, the claim made by ryots for

enhancement of lariff was not considered by the 2'd

Respondent. Howcver, when GST rate has now come down from

12 to 5"k, the DISCOMs, taking advantage of the same' have

filed the present interlocutory application for reduction of tariff

from Rs.3.13/'kWH to Rs.2 98/kwh lt is contended that a

reading of the Application filed by the DISCOMs' in I A No 4 of

2026 does not show that DISCOMs have sought for reduction of

tariff from Rs.3.13/kwh to Rs.2.98/kWh, but the notice issued

by tho 2'd Respondent - Commission for its public hearing

reflects the said price which shows that the 2"d Respondent has

-

5

pre-determined the price which was not mentioned in the

Application hled by the DISCOMs. It is further contended by

learned Senior Counsel lhat the 2"d Respondent does not have

the foundation of jurisdictional fact to embark upon the enquiry

to conduct the public hearing based on the Application made by

the DISCOMs and insisted that the 2"d Respondent may file its

counter. He therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Petition by

declaring the action of the 2"d Respondent in proceeding with

hearing of I. A. No. 4 of 2026 in OP No. 24 of 2O2O as one

without having foundation of jurisdictional fact and to set aside

the proceedings in I.A. No. 4 of 2026. Learned Senior Counsel

relied upon the judgment of the;on'ble Supreme Court in Arun

Kumar a. tJnlorr. of Indial and the judgment of the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2O2O and batch

dated 15.O3.2O22.

3. This Court, by order dated 03.08.2026, permitted the

2"d Respondent to go ahead with the public hearing but directed

not to pass any linal order. Thereafter, it is seen that the public

hearing took place on the scheduled date and many publc

spirited persons and represenlatives of several solar power

projects, including petitioners, have participated in the public

'

(2006) scc Supp. 290

-

6

hearing and otjecled for passrng any orders, reducing the pre-

hxed levelised tariff, as sought by the DISCOMs'

4. Leareed Additional Advocate General contended that

the 2nd Respolldent, being the statutory authority constituted

under the trlectricity Act, 20O3, has power not only to regulate

but also to adl udicate upon issues within the parameters of the

Act. Ir is contended that the 2"d Respondent being the

adjudicatory zruthority having ample power under the Act'

rvould take into consideration all the aspects that have been

brought to its :rotice inclrlding the petition filed by the DISCOMs

and the objec-ions, if any, can be raised by petitioners in the

public hearinp, fixed by the 2nd Respondent and not before this

Court. It is contended that the 2"d respondent cannot be

curtailed at the thrcshold from proceeding with the l-rearing of

an applicatiorL filed by the DISCOMS and adjudicate the said

petition on me rits.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No 2

states that t ee Electricrty Regulatory Commission being an

adjudicatory authoritY

DISCO Ms, un:uld not

on LA. No. 4 of 2026 flled bY the

inasm uch as [he samc

in a position to file its colrnter,

wourld reveal the stand of the 2nd

even belbre taking anY decision on

be

Respondent

(lommission

-

7

merits and the same would not be in the interests of the case to

be decided by the lna Respondent.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 hled

counter and raised preliminary objection regarding the

maintainability of the Writ Petition which was filed challenging

the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent proposing to

fix/conduct public hearing on 04.08.2026. It is contended that

there are more than 900 farmers, who have entered into power

Purchase Agreements with the. DISCOMs for establishment of

solar power projects under PM KUSUM Scheme and prayed that

this Court may not interfere with the jurisdiction of the 2"d

Respondent based on the Writ petition filed by 1t persons, that

too by approaching this Court one day before the scheduled

date of public hearing. It is contended that the issue l_hat is

being dealt with by the 2"a Respondent is purely a technical

issue which shall not be interdicted by this Court at the

threshold. It is contended that there is no reason for the

petitioners to apprehend that the 2"d Respondent would not

follow the procedure while adjudicating I.A. No. 4 of 2026.

6.1. It is contended that petitioners have approached

this Court only on apprehensions, and there is no other basis

for them to maintain the Writ Petition. It is further contended

-

8

thataftertheI],ISCOMshavefiledlANo.4of2026forreduction

of pre fixed levelised tariff, detailed calculations have been hled

before the 2'd Respondent in view of reduction ol GST from 12

to 57o and thr:refore, the 2"d Respondent has mentioned the

price of Rs.2.!r8/kWh in its notice. Il is contended that there is

no illegality in the 2"a Respondent merely informing the price of

Rs.2.98/kWh rvhich is now sought by the DISCOMs and it does

not amount to approval or adjudication of 2"d Respondent

before hearinp; the Application lt is contended that the said

figure was arrived at based on the calculations furnished by the

DISCOMs and not suo-motu by the 2"d Respondent Commission'

Therefore, the apprehension of p.ii,io''t'" is wholly unfounded

and the 2'd Respondent should be allowed to decide the issue

on merits and in case either the petitioners or the DISCOMs are

aggrievcd by ztny dccision rendcred by the 2"d Respondent, the

same can aluays be questioned before the appropriate Forum

and it is not a case where this Court would interfere at the

threshold. It is contended that only in the absence of

jurisdiction and authorlty, this Court would interfere in any

matter that tc o if appropriate writ such as Writ of Prohibition is

sought for, brtt in the case on hand, what is prayed for is a Writ

-

9

of Mandamus. Therefore, viewing from any angle, thc Writ

Petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same.

7. The entire case of petitioners is that I. A. No. 4 of

2026 ltled by the DISCOMs in O.P.No. 24 of 2020 cannot be

taken up for adjudication by the 2"d Respondent nor can the

tariff be reduced by ths 2na Respondent from Rs. 3.13/kWh to

Rs.2.98/kWh based on change in law i.e. reduction of GST.

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners does not dispute the

jurisdiction of the 2"d Respondent to decide the issue on hand

but contends that there was no foundation of jurisdictional fact

to embark upon the enquiry undertaken by it in I A No. 4 of

2026. Once it is accepted that the 2na Respondent Commission,

under the Electricity Act, 2003, is empowered to decide the tariff

under Sections 61, 62 &, 64 of the Acr, it would not be

appropriate for this Court to interdict the 2"d Respondent from

discharging its functions under the Act. The DISCOMs have

filed I.A. No. 4 of 2026, to be adjudicated by the 2nd Respondenr

- Commission. The 2"d Respondent, in its wisdom, issued notice

of public hearing for adjudication of the said lnterlocutory

Application. Therefore, petitioners can always participate in the

public hearing and oppose the Application filed by the

DISCOMs. Mere filing of Applicatiorl by the DISCOMs or taking

-

10

up the said 1\pplication for hearing by the 2nd Respondent

Commrssion itself cannot be a ground for petitioners to invoke

the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under ArLicle 226 of

the Constitutir>n, contendjng that the 2"d Respondent has pre

determined to rcduce the tariff from Rs. 3.13,/kwh to

Rs.2.98/kWh as sought by the DISCOMs. The figure of

Rs. 2.98/kwh, as explained b5; learned Standing Counsel for

Respondent I o 3, has come into picture in vierv of the

calculations fi- rnished by the DISCOMs to the 2"d Respondent,

after filing the interlocutory application. Even though the same

was specificall'y' mentioned in the counter filed by the DISCOMs,

the same was rrot rebutted by petitioners by Iiling any reply.

8. As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel

lor Rcspondents 3 and 4 that as against more than 900 solar

power projec--s who have entered into Power Purchase

Agreements q,ith the DISCOMs, only 11 are before this Court

and at the instance of 11 persons, thrs Court is not inclined to

interfere with :he adjudication process being undertaken by the

2nd Respondent Commission. Moreover, petitioners have

participated in the public hearing conducted by the 2nd

respondent on 04.O8.2026. l'his Court, therefore, holds that

petitioners have not made out any case for thrs Court to

- ll

interfere with the adjudicatory authority of the 2nd Respondent.

As it is accepted by petitioners that they have participated in the

public hearing conducted by the 2"a Respondent, this Court has

no doubt that the 2"d Respondent would take into consideration

all the aspects including the objections raised by petitioners and

others, before coming to a just conclusion and may render its

decision. This Court sees no grounds to interfere in the matter.

The above writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

10.

.

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shail stand closed.

sd/- s. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

ASSISTANT EGI

//TRUE COPY//

SEION OFFICER

To,

1One CC to SRI P.SRI RAM, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER' SC FOR TGNPDCL [OPUC]

One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUC]

one CC to SRI P.N.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR Tcqlg IOPUC]

Two CCs to ADDL. ADVdCAiL''cfUennl,

High bourt for the State of

Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at

Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD CoPies

2.

?

4

5

t)

7

W

BSR

MS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 21109t12026

ORDER

WP.No.25236 ot 2026

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

1tA

6. S T416:

21 sEPzifl$

,}

o

o

q

\'

q

ol^