Allowed

G.Darshan v. The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation

Telangana HC22 Dec 2010WP/30442/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a disconnection notice issued by the respondents which failed to reflect the reasons alleged in a prior show cause notice. The Court held the notice unsustainable and set it aside, directing the respondents to pass a speaking order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned disconnection notice set aside. Respondents directed to pass a speaking order within two weeks.

G.Darshan Vs The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.30442 of 2010

Between:

G. Darshan

..... Petitioner

AND

The Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Hyderabad & another.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner : None

¶13

Counsel for the respondents : Sri O. Manohar Reddy

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30442 of 2010

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside disconnection notice No.A 70201, dated 30.11.2010 issued by respondent No.2.

¶18

This case has a chequered career. The petitioner is running a bore well with electricity service connection No.P 3024902. When the power supply was sought to be disconnected, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21794 of 2002. Initially, an interim order was granted, but later the same was vacated by this Court on the ground that the petitioner was found using the bore well for commercial purpose affecting the interests of the people of the locality and in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Ground Water (Regulation of Drinking Water Purpose) Act, 1996.

¶19

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel, at the hearing, stated that the abovementioned Writ Petition was subsequently dismissed and that when the petitioner started using the bore well again allegedly for commercial purpose, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 24.11.2010 calling upon him to submit objections as to why the power supply should not be disconnected, as the residents of the colony has given a representation that the petitioner is selling water for commercial purpose.

¶20

In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has given his explanation dated 01.12.2010, which was received in the office of respondent No.1 on the same day. However, even before the said explanation was received, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice, wherein it is stated that the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection was disconnected and that for obtaining

¶21

reconnection, the petitioner has to clear the dues.

¶22

At the hearing, it is conceded by the learned Standing counsel that the reasons contained in the impugned disconnection notice are totally unconnected with the facts of the present case. It is stated that the power supply was disconnected on the allegations contained in the show cause notice, but the impugned disconnection notice does not reflect such intention and as such the same cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. This order, however, does not prevent the respondents from passing an appropriate speaking order, after considering explanation dated 01.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner. The respondents shall pass such an order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.38782 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶26

Date: 22.12.2010 ES

G.Darshan v. The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Darshan v. The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation

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

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) Vs The Assistant Engineer (Operations)

Smt. Matta Veera Veni Vs TheGovt. of a.P., rep. by its Secretary

Mithula T Vs The Asistant Director of Mines and Geology., D.No.4-49-18

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

M.Ram Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Transworld Garnet India Private Limited Vs The Director of Mines and Geology,Department of Mines