Dismissed

K.Shankari Devi v. The Divisional Eletrical Engineer, Operation Apcpdc

Telangana HC6 Dec 2006WP/25328/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a demand for electricity arrears relating to a vendor's property, the Court dismissed the petition due to the absence of the sale deed and failure to file a petition against the vendor under the Revenue Recovery Act.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with observations that the petitioner could file an appropriate petition against the vendor.

K.Shankari Devi Vs The Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25328 of 2006

¶3

Dated:06.12.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

K.S.Shankari Devi.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The Divisional Electrical Engineer and another.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.25328 of 2006

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner herein allegedly purchased premises in Plot No.600 situated at Venkataramana Colony (Gokul Plots) near K.P.H.B.Colony of Kukatpally in Hyderabad, along with Service Connection No.22011 02952 in 2005. It appears, the property was initially owned by M/s.Teja Slab Industries (4-21/29). As there were arrears from the said vendor, the respondents initiated action for recovery of the amount, and by notice dated 05.07.2006 M/s.Teja Slab Industries was directed to pay electricity arrears in a sum of Rs.22,253/- to the Central Power Distribution Company Limited. The notice also informed that in default, the movable and immovable property will be attached for recovery of the amount as per the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.

¶14

It is the grievance of the petitioner – and it is highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that when the arrears were due from the petitioner’s vendor, the petitioner is being asked to pay the amount, which is illegal.

¶15

A copy of the document under which the petitioner purchased the property is not placed before this Court. In the absence of such a document, it is not possible for this Court to examine the liability of the petitioner for all the levies and arrears due from the petitioner’s

¶16

vendor. Secondly, the petitioner was not given any Distraint Notice but the same was addressed to M/s.Teja Slab Industries. Therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to file appropriate petition before the first respondent. This was not done. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.

¶17

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶18

____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.12.2006 vs

K.Shankari Devi v. The Divisional Eletrical Engineer, Operation Apcpdc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shankari Devi v. The Divisional Eletrical Engineer, Operation Apcpdc

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

Smt S. Ramanamma Vs the Dist Collector

Samudrala Venkata Swamy, Vs The Union of India

Dr.G.Shiva Prasad Reddy Vs The District Collector

Goda Venkata Ramana Vs The District Collector

Mohd.Shabbir, Vs The Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar Mandal

M.Venkata Ramudu, Vs The District Collector