The High Court declined to interfere with a Single Judge’s interim order requiring payment of 40% of a disputed surcharge, clarifying that appellate review over such interim orders is limited, especially where core jurisdictional questions remain pending before the Single Judge. The decision affirms existing precedent on non-interference with interlocutory directions, holding practical binding value for handling interim relief in administrative and regulatory disputes, particularly in utility and small-scale industry cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/1146/2025 of M/s. Sriven Poly Pack Vs The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company of Ltd. |
| CNR | HBHC010616562025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (concurring) |
| Court | High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the Telangana High Court’s jurisdiction for identical issues involving appellate review of interim orders |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms: order of Single Judge in WP No. 27867 of 2025 |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law, Electricity Regulatory Law, Writ Jurisdiction, Interim Relief |
| Questions of Law | Whether a Division Bench should interfere with a Single Judge’s interim order mandating partial payment when the core dispute, including the authority’s jurisdiction to levy surcharge, remains pending. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant (a Small Scale Industry) challenged a power company’s demand to pay a surcharge; the Single Judge directed payment of 40% of the disputed amount pending decision on jurisdictional validity. The Division Bench was approached to set aside that interim direction based on alleged financial hardship and lack of jurisdiction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All single and division benches of the High Court for the State of Telangana; subordinate courts within Telangana for similar issues. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts when considering the scope of appellate intervention in interim orders, especially in regulatory and administrative contexts. |
| Follows | Standard judicial approach on non-interference with interim/interlocutory orders unless manifest prejudice or jurisdictional error established. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Division Bench clarifies that it generally will not interfere with interim/interlocutory orders of single judges unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Affirmed that all jurisdictional and substantive legal issues remain open for adjudication before the Single Judge, even if a partial payment is mandated.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to resist appellate overturning of interim payment orders where the main dispute is yet to be decided.
- Clear liberty retained for affected parties to seek modification or variation of interim orders before the same or lower court.
- The precedent may be particularly relevant in disputes involving regulatory authorities and monetary demands where jurisdiction/authority is challenged.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench noted that the order under challenge was purely interim/interlocutory and does not prejudice the main rights of the parties.
- All contentions regarding the electricity company’s jurisdiction to levy surcharge are still pending before the Single Judge.
- The payment direction (40% of the surcharge) is not final and does not foreclose any arguments or defences; further applications for modification are permitted.
- The court recorded the appellant’s financial hardship plea but found no disproportionate prejudice from compliance with the interim order.
- The Bench extended the timeline for compliance and explicitly stated that all substantive grounds may still be urged before the Single Judge, maintaining procedural fairness and judicial economy.
- Accordingly, the writ appeal was disposed of, without costs, leaving the interim arrangement undisturbed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Questioned the jurisdiction of the Power Distribution Company to levy the surcharge amount of Rs. 13,48,372.
- Claimed inability to shoulder the financial burden as a Small Scale Industry.
- Sought removal or modification of the interim payment condition.
Respondent (TGSPDCL):
- No specific arguments detailed in the judgment beyond defending the necessity, validity, and maintainability of the interim order.
Factual Background
The appellant, a Small Scale Industry, was served a notice by the Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., demanding payment of a surcharge. The company challenged the notice in a writ petition before a Single Judge, principally questioning the authority’s jurisdiction to levy such a surcharge. The Single Judge issued an interim order requiring the appellant to pay 40% of the disputed surcharge amount, pending a final decision on the challenge. The appellant sought appellate relief from the Division Bench to set aside this interim direction, citing financial hardship and pending jurisdictional questions.
Statutory Analysis
- The court did not perform detailed statutory interpretation within the judgment above, but noted that all questions—including jurisdiction to levy surcharge (potentially under Electricity Law or regulatory framework)—remain to be adjudicated by the Single Judge in the main matter.
- Section 151 of CPC (procedural provision for inherent powers) used as the basis for the interim application.
- The Division Bench reiterated the limited scope of appellate review over interlocutory/interim orders, grounded in established procedural norms.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no dissent. Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar concurred with the lead judgment authored by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.
Procedural Innovations
- The Division Bench clarified the liberty of parties to file further applications for modification or variation of the interim order before the Single Judge—a practical reaffirmation of procedural flexibility in ongoing writ petitions.
- The time for compliance with the interim order was extended, acknowledging but not deciding hardship claims at the interim stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Division Bench affirmed and applied established precedent regarding the non-interference of appellate courts with interlocutory orders of lower courts/judges unless exceptional circumstances exist.