Allowed

P.V. Krishnam Raju v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC1 Mar 2005WP/3917/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court set aside an appellate order passed without a personal hearing. The court directed the respondent to afford the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing and dispose of the appeal afresh within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to grant personal hearing to petitioners and dispose of appeal afresh with fresh reasons within four weeks.

P.V. Krishnam Raju Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 3917 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 P.V. Krishnam Raju, S/o. P.S.N. Raju,

¶9

R/o. Plot No. 32, North Extension, Seethammadhara,

¶10

Visakhapatnam.

¶11

2 Rednam Ahi Krishna, S/o. Late Dharma Rao, R/o. D.No. 30-15-50, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

..... PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Superintending Engineer,

¶15

Assessments Circle, A.P. Eastern

¶16

Power Distribution Company Limited, Opp: Green Park, Waltair

¶17

Main Road, Gujuwaka Junction, VIsakhapatnam.

¶18

2 The Divisional Engineer, Assessments A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd.

¶19

Opp: Green Park, Waltair Main Road, Gujuwaka Junction, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Distribution, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd.

¶21

Opp: Green Park, Waltair Main Road,

¶22

Gujuwaka Junction, Visakhapatnam.

¶23

4 The Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd.,

¶24

Zone-I, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶25

5 Narayanabatla Subrahmanyam @ Metla Subramanyam,

¶26

Visakha Colour Lab, 30-15-50, Daba Gardens,

¶27

Visakhapatnam.

¶28

6 Narayanabatla Padmavathi @ Metla Padmavathi W/o.

¶29

Subrahmanyam, Visakha Colour Lab, 30-15-50, Daba

¶30

Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶31

.....RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No. DE /A/VSP/Doc.No. VSPI-2340/D.No. F.O. 135/04, dt. 30-4-2004 as affirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings SAP/1788/VSP/DZ1/VSP/A/F.485/D.NO.2665, dt. 7- 12-2004 as bad, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act 1910 as amended, for violation of principles of natural Justice and set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. M.VIDYAVATHI

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: Mrs. M.SRIRAMULU REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶34

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard both sides and at their request this case is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶37

2. The only complaint of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal had not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 (for short, “the Act”).

¶38

3. Section 127 of the Act contemplates that an opportunity of personal hearing should be given before passing the final orders in the appeal. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent-appellate authority would only reveal that no such opportunity of personal hearing had ever been accorded to the petitioner. This Court is not going to the other aspects or merits of the case in any manner.

¶39

4. Only on the ground that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner, which is mandatory as per Section 127 of the Act, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.

¶40

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and dispose of the appeal afresh with reasons uninfluenced by the reasons recorded in the impugned order. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, however, subject to the

¶41

co-operation of the petitioner.

¶42

(D.S.R.VARMA,J)

¶43

1^st March, 2005.

¶44

Tsy

¶45

¶46

1 The Superintending Engineer,

¶47

Assessments Circle, A.P. Eastern

¶48

Power Distribution Company Limited,

¶49

Opp: Green Park, Waltair

¶50

Main Road, Gujuwaka Junction, VIsakhapatnam.

¶51

2 The Divisional Engineer, Assessments A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd. Opp: Green Park, Waltair Main Road, Gujuwaka Junction, Visakhapatnam.

¶52

3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Distribution, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd. Opp: Green Park, Waltair Main Road, Gujuwaka Junction, Visakhapatnam.

¶53

4 The Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd., Zone-I, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶54

5 Two CD copies.

P.V. Krishnam Raju v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.V. Krishnam Raju v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varada Daliguruvulu, Vs Teh Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Lella Ratna Reddy S/o Narapa Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District

Smt.M.Rama Lakshmi, Vs The Joint Collector, Srikakulam

Basavalinga Reddy, Vs Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise

Smt. Dasari Sarojini, Vs The Chief General Manager

M/s Bhargavi Bar and Restaurant, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh