The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Hyderabad-based GVK Gautami Power Ltd, expressing strong displeasure against electricity transmission and distribution companies of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh governments.
Background of the Case
The company sought enforcement of an order for reimbursement of Rs 24.28 crore in Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) paid to the income tax department for 2009-10 and 2010-11, along with interest, in connection with its gas-based power project at Peddapuram, East Godavari district.
Court's Observations
On June 9, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction and could not act as an execution forum for orders issued by electricity regulators. The bench imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on the petitioner.
Taking note of ongoing Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) proceedings involving claims of over Rs 1,100 crore, the judge observed: “Granting relief at this point could adversely affect the respondents (transmission and distribution companies)’ ability to recover sums if they were to succeed in those proceedings.”
Failure to Pursue Claims
While dismissing the case, the court said it was “awestruck” that despite having a claim pending before the CERC, the authorities did not pursue it before the National Company Law Tribunal during the petitioner’s insolvency process, nor did they move the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The court directed the chairmen and managing directors of AP and Telangana Transcos and all discoms to hold an enquiry and fix responsibility for failing to pursue the claim, noting that the lapse caused substantial loss to the public exchequer.
Arguments and Judgment
GVK Gautami Power relied on a 2013 order of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), later affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the Supreme Court. The respondents argued the petition was essentially an attempt to execute an APERC order and therefore not maintainable under Article 226. They stressed that all material events occurred in Andhra Pradesh, where the project is located and the power purchase agreement was signed.
While agreeing that it lacked jurisdiction, the court further held that the petition functioned as an execution and recovery action, noting that ERCs have powers comparable to civil courts and can enforce their own orders. Avoiding the statutory route and directly invoking writ jurisdiction, the court said, was not legally permissible.
