Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) v. The Assistant Engineer (Operations)

Telangana HC21 Dec 2010WP/32008/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus declaring power disconnection illegal. The court held Article 226 is not appropriate for civil disputes over service connection transfers and possession. The writ petition and interim relief were dismissed/disposed as infructuous, directing the petitioner to seek relief in the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The interim relief application is disposed of as infructuous.

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No.32008 of 2010

¶3

DT.21.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Shri Dilip Kumar Agarwal

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Assistant Engineer (Operations), Somajiguda Section, Dist.1/City1, APCPDC Ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad (AP) and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.A.Achuthanand

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri S.V.Ramana

¶12

For Sri O.Manohar Reddy

¶13

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in threatening to disconnect power supply to service connection bearing No.A-7005683 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶16

The petitioner claims to be in possession of the first floor western side of premises bearing M.No.6-3-654, Hyderabad Stock Exchange Building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. It is his pleaded case

¶17

that in pursuance of an oral lease, respondent No.4 has permitted him to occupy the said part of the premises, wherein he is running a furniture shop under the name and style of ‘Silver Space Furniture’. On the no objection given by respondent No.4 on 27.07.2006, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have released power supply to the petitioner in the name of respondent No.5, who claims to be his employee. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.182 of 2008 in the Court of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.4 from interfering with his possession from the property, and along with the said suit, he also filed an application for ad interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Court. The C.M.A., filed by the petitioner is stated to be pending in this Court. The immediate cause on which the petitioner filed the present writ petition is that respondent No.6, who is the lessee of respondent No.4 in respect of a part of the premises owned by the latter, has approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 and at his instance, the latter have been threatening to disconnect the power supply.

¶18

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.6 in collusion with respondent Nos.1 to 3 has illegally got the service connection standing in the name of respondent No.5 transferred on his name and prevailed upon respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disconnect the power supply.

¶19

The learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.6 addressed a letter to respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking to dismantle the service connection on the ground that he has two service connections and that on his request, the service was dismantled and supply was disconnected.

¶20

In my opinion, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶21

of India for restoration of electricity which is an amenity for convenient enjoyment of the property is not appropriate because disconnection of electricity by respondent Nos.1 to 3 was effected at the instance of respondent No.6.

¶22

The facts noted above would clearly reveal that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, and respondent No.6 is claiming through respondent No.4. Having approached the competent civil Court by way of a civil suit, the petitioner could as well have applied for appropriate relief relating to service connection. On the petitioner’s own showing he has failed to get an order of injunction for protecting his possession.

¶23

In the light of these facts, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner is left free to approach the competent civil Court either in the pending suit or by way of filing a substantive suit for the relief, which is claimed in the present writ petition.

¶24

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40688 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶26

Date: 21.12.2010 VGB

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) v. The Assistant Engineer (Operations)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) v. The Assistant Engineer (Operations)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Majji Ramanamma Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)

Kalisetti Kannaiah Vs The District Collector

K.Anjaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

N. Naidu Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance)