The Telangana High Court has directed the Telangana government to file an affidavit detailing measures to prevent drowning incidents at the Godavari river sandbanks in Bhadrachalam, while dismissing a batch of petitions challenging cross subsidy surcharge demands issued by the state’s southern power distribution company.
The court’s direction on river safety follows the drowning of five students from a private university near the Bhadrachalam sandbanks on March 20. The students were part of a group of seven who had visited the location on Ugadi and were taking photographs when some entered a deeper stretch of the river.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice S. Chalapathi Rao took up the matter as a suo motu public interest litigation. The proceedings followed a letter dated March 25 from Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, which highlighted the reported absence of warning signboards and adequate precautionary arrangements at the site.
The letter sought directions to the Chief Secretary and other authorities to install warning boards, identify deep and dangerous stretches, and display information about unsafe areas along the riverbank. Although the incident occurred on the Andhra Pradesh side, the court was told that similar drowning incidents had also been reported on the Telangana side. The bench has adjourned the matter to November 11.
In a separate matter, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed writ petitions filed by several companies and commercial establishments against demand notices issued by the Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, or TGSPDCL, for cross subsidy surcharge dues from previous financial years.
The petitioners included My Home Estates, Dolphin Hotels, Greenpark Hotels and Resorts, R.S. Brothers Retail India, My Home Tycoon, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Margadarsi Chit Fund, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Apollo Hospitals Enterprise and Yashoda Healthcare Services. They argued that they were exempt from paying the surcharge under the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2005, because the generators from which they procured power had been authorised to supply electricity to third-party consumers.
TGSPDCL standing counsel N. Sreedhar Reddy argued that the exemption applied only where the generator had obtained valid consent from the state government under Section 43-A(1)(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The court accepted the argument that government orders issued in 1997 and 1998, which enabled non-conventional energy generators to undertake third-party electricity sales, could not be treated as the statutory consent required for exemption from cross subsidy surcharge.
In the case of Margadarsi Chit Fund, the court noted that the company had challenged a demand of Rs. 81.12 lakh for the financial years 2005-06 to 2014-15. It had not produced the required consent either before the distribution company or before the High Court. The court consequently found no grounds to interfere with the demand notices issued to the petitioners and dismissed the batch of writ petitions.
The High Court also heard police objections to a petition filed by Huzurabad MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy, who is challenging the collection of his voice samples in an ongoing criminal investigation. Public prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao opposed the plea and questioned its maintainability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The proceedings concern the validity of the lower court orders permitting the police to collect the samples.
