Dismissed

Smt.T.Bharathi v. The Superintending Engineer (Assessments)

Telangana HC17 Aug 2012WA/2042/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ appeals challenging single-judge orders regarding the correction of power connection categories. The court held that since the petitioners admitted the facts and deposited the demanded amounts, no illegality remained to justify interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed; liberty was given to apply to the concerned authority if any grievance subsists.

Smt.T.Bharathi Vs The Superintending Engineer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL Nos.1634 and 2042 of 2005

¶6

WA.No.1634 of 2005: BETWEEN T. Lenin Reddy. …APPELLANT AND The Superintending Engineer (Assessments), APSPDCL, Tirupati and three others.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

…RESPONDENTS

¶9

WA.No.2042 of 2005: BETWEEN Smt. T. Bharathi. …APPELLANT AND The Superintending Engineer (Assessments), APSPDCL, Tirupati and three others.

¶10

…RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. B. CHINNAPA REDDY

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P. VINOD KUMAR MR. V. AJAY KUMAR

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶14

These appeals are directed against separate orders dated 06.06.2005 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.Nos.1634 and 2042 of 2005 respectively.

¶15

2. It appears that the writ petitioners, who were owners of the premises in Sattenapalli, Guntur District, were granted power connections in category – I i.e. residential purpose. Since the energy was being used for commercial purpose i.e. running a school,

¶16

the authorities took steps in the matter and determined the liability of the petitioners at Rs.7,397/- and Rs.14,671/- respectively for utilization of residential energy connection for commercial purpose. The writ petitioners preferred appeals against the said orders,

¶17

which were rejected by orders dated 20.12.2004. Challenging the said orders, the writ petitions were filed. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed before the Court, the Court held that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent findings on fact and dismissed the writ petitions.

¶18

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said orders, these appeals were filed.

¶19

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Since the facts are wholly admitted and which cannot be improved at this stage, we find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Hon’ble single Judge. However, we have been informed that the amounts demanded in the respective writ petitions have already been

¶20

deposited and power supply has been restored.

¶21

5. In view of that, we do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the orders impugned further except giving liberty to the petitioners to apply, if any grievance subsists, before the concerned authority.

¶22

The writ appeals are dismissed with the liberty as granted above. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶24

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶25

August 17, 2012 DSK

Smt.T.Bharathi v. The Superintending Engineer (Assessments)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.T.Bharathi v. The Superintending Engineer (Assessments)

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

Paladugula Kumaraswamy Vs G. Venugopal Rao

Union of India, Vs Yelmareddy Suryamma

M.Eswara Reddy Vs v.Mallikarjuna

Goparaju Krishna Venamma, Vs Sri Kondandaramanjaneya Swamy Temple

T. Murali Mohan Rao, Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation

Smt. K. Laxmamma, Died per Lr Vs The Municipal Administration Department