Telangana HC slaps Rs 20L fine on Taj Mahal Hotel, Taj Tristar

The High Court said the two hotel operators approaching the court with "unclean hands."

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday, July 15, dismissed two writ petitions filed by hotel operators against power surcharge demands and imposed an exemplary fine of Rs 10 lakh each on them for approaching the court with “unclean hands.”

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka passed the order on petitions filed by B Sundar Rao Hotels, which runs the Taj Mahal Hotel at Abids, and Sundar Taj Mahal Hotels, which operates Hotel Taj Tristar in Secunderabad. The judge directed that the fine amounts be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.

The two hotels had moved the High Court against cross-subsidy surcharge (CSS) demand notices issued by the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company (TGSPDCL). B Sundar Rao Hotels had challenged a demand of Rs 27.5 lakh, while the other petitioner had contested a demand of Rs 77.7 lakh, both for the period from 2005-06 to 2014-15.

The petitioners argued that they sourced power from 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 cited earlier High Court rulings, including in the Rain Cements case, in which similar demand notices were quashed.

Fresh pleas held not maintainable

TGSPDCL opposed the petitions, arguing they were not maintainable since they had been filed against individual officials rather than the company. Standing counsel N Sreedhar Reddy told the High Court that both hotels had earlier challenged the same demand notices, withdrawn those petitions without seeking liberty to file afresh and had subsequently sought instalment facilities to clear the CSS dues. 

He also argued that the 2005 order did not apply to the petitioners, citing Supreme Court rulings in support.

Accepting TGSPDCL’s objections, the court held that the fresh writ petitions were not maintainable as the earlier ones had been withdrawn without liberty to refile. The judge also noted that the petitioners had suppressed material facts relating to their instalment requests and payment of dues.