Rs 4.21 crore power bill: Telangana HC dismisses private firm’s appeal against decades-old dues

Sanghi Polymers challenged the demand, arguing that the charges were primarily the liability of another group company (respondent no. 5), which is currently in liquidation. They contended that the demand was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, as it was made years after the charges were first due. The petitioners claimed that the group company (respondent no. 5) did not maintain a captive power plant and should not be subject to GSC, and added that since respondent No.5 is under liquidation, any claim against respondent no.5 has to be filed before the liquidator.

The TGSPDCL asserted that in 2001-02, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), by an order of February 2002, 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 the power grid. The petitioners and group companies have utilised the power from diesel generators, which is captive power, they argued.

According to the TGSPDCL, the Supreme Court has upheld the erstwhile APERC’s order in November 2019, and it is based on this that the TGSPDCL issued the demand notice in August 2022, requesting GSC payment.

‘Ensure charges are duly paid’

In its December 30, 2025, judgment, the division bench rejected these arguments, noting that the company signed a fresh agreement in May 2020, undertaking to comply with all tariff provisions and pay charges for the service connection. The bench also noted that the GSC issue had been conclusively settled by the November 2019 Supreme Court judgment in the case of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited vs. M/s. Rain Calcining Limited.

On the aspect of limitation, the division bench agreed with the single judge’s finding 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”.

In a stern reminder to industrial consumers, the bench emphasised the societal importance of public utilities and the necessity of fulfilling financial obligations. “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,” the bench remarked.

The court further remarked on the responsibility of consumers to pay for infrastructure: “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 lawful charges determined under the statutory and regulatory framework are duly paid.”

The bench found no error in the earlier dismissal of the company’s writ petition and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.