Dismissed

M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Bandumilli Road, v. The Superintending Engineer Operation

Telangana HC11 Mar 2010WP/5671/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand for power charges. The court held that the petitioner could not avail parallel remedies since a civil suit on the same matter was already pending, and the inaction of the civil judge did not justify writ intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition questioning the demand for service line and development charges was dismissed as infructuous.

M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Bandumilli Road, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.5671 OF 2010

¶3

Dated 1 1 th March, 2010

¶4

Between: M/s Balaji Rice Mill …Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

The Superintending Engineer And two others …Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.C.S.Sastry Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy Standing Counsel for A.P Transco

¶8

The Court made the following

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside demand for Rs.1,59,070/- raised by the respondents towards service line and development charges and Rs.18,500/- towards consumption deposit.

¶11

In paragraph 5 of its affidavit, the petitioner stated as under-

¶12

“For the relief sought for in this writ petition, I have filed a Civil suit i.e., O.S.No.72/2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada for declaration that the demand for collection of service line charges as arbitrary and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein not to disconnect H.T.S.C. service No.VJA 1124 of the petitioner. The learned Trial Judge is on leave and the matter is pending. Meanwhile petitioner’s HTSC service No.1124 is being disconnected on 06.03.2010, hence this writ petition.”

¶13

At the hearing, Sri C.C.S.Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Senior Civil Judge of Machilipatnam is kept in-charge of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada and that on the application moved before the said learned Judge, no order has been passed. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, the respondents disconnected the power supply.

¶14

In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to avail parallel remedies. Having filed a civil suit questioning the demand of the amounts, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition in order to question the same demand. If the in-charge Judge has not

¶15

passed an order, the petitioner is entitled to seek a further remedy under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the nonpassing of order by civil Judge cannot be a ground for the petitioner to maintain a writ petition.

¶16

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.7289 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

Dated 11th March, 2010 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow vrn

M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Bandumilli Road, v. The Superintending Engineer Operation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Bandumilli Road, v. The Superintending Engineer Operation

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

P. Vijayanand Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Thatha Ramachandra Rao Vs Puvvada Sanjeeva Rao

V. Anusha, Vs The Regional Pass Port Officer

E.Satyanarayana Vs The Prohibition and Excise Commissioner, Hyderabad

Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Rytu Sangham, Vs The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract Vs The STate of Ap. rep.by its Secretary (Mines)