Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Wednesday dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/s B Sundar Rao Hotels at Abids and M/s Sundar Taj Mahal Hotels, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, and imposed exemplary fines of ₹10 lakh in each case.Observing that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and approached the court with unclean hands, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed that the amounts be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.The petitioners had approached the court challenging Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) demand notices issued by the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company (TGSPDCL).B Sundar Rao Hotels, which operates the Taj Mahal Hotel at Abids, challenged a demand of ₹27.5 lakh towards CSS for the period from 2005-06 to 2014-15. The other petitioner, which operates Hotel Taj Tristar in Secunderabad, questioned a CSS demand of ₹77.7 lakh for the same period.Both petitioners contended that they sourced power from M/s Rain Calcining, a generator authorised under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and were therefore exempt from paying CSS under the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005.They also relied on previous high court judgments, including the Rain Cements case, in which similar demand notices were quashed.TGSPDCL, however, opposed the petitions, arguing that they were not maintainable as they had been filed against individual officials instead of the company. “Both petitioners had earlier challenged the same demand notices, later withdrew those writ petitions without obtaining liberty to file fresh petitions, and subsequently sought instalment facilities to pay the CSS dues,” contended N Sreedhar Reddy, standing counsel for TGSPDCL.Sreedhar further argued that the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2005, did not apply to the petitioners and relied on Supreme Court judgments in support of the company’s stand.Accepting TGSPDCL’s objections, the judge held that the fresh writ petitions were not maintainable, as the earlier petitions had been withdrawn without liberty to file them afresh.The judge further pointed out that the petitioners had suppressed material facts relating to their requests for instalments and payment of dues.
