Disposed

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC18 Dec 2012WP/37011/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging failure to provide a 100 HP transformer. Court declined direct order for installation, directing the power department to examine a pending representation and decide within two months based on requirements and relevant laws.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to examine the post-filing representation regarding 100 HP transformer within two months and decide based on inquiry and relevant laws.

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37011 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD appearing for the 1^st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL appearing for respondents 3 to 5.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing 100 HP Transformer at DL Nagar in Jandlavaram Village of Mydukur Mandal in YSR Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, to direct the respondents to provide 100 HP Transformer for the purpose of irrigation and drinking water at the aforesaid place.

¶6

The lands of the petitioner herein and several other farmers were acquired for the purpose of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project during the years 1984-88. It is stated that the petitioner and others, whose lands are affected due to submersion, have migrated to DL Nagar of Jandlavaram Village in Mydukur Mandal of YSR Kadapa District and constructed houses and are living by cultivation.

¶7

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the respondents have laid electric lines, the petitioner and other farmers are not able to use electricity because of non-provision of 100 HP Transformer.

¶8

In this writ petition, it is to be noticed that the matter as to which capacity transformer is to be set up at a particular locality, is to be decided by the respondents after inquiring into the availability of electricity, the capacity of existing transformer etc., but, this Court, in

¶9

exercise of Writ jurisdiction, cannot go into such aspects, so as to direct the respondents to set up a 100 HP transformer, as prayed for. However, as it is stated that a further representation dated 30.11.2012 is made to the 3^rd respondent during the pendency of this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to examine the said representation for providing 100 HP transformer at DL Nagar in Jandlavaram village of Mydukur Mandal and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, and on inquiry, if it is found that a 100 HP transformer is required for providing electricity to the service connections of petitioner and other agriculturists, necessary steps shall be taken for the said purpose, by following the terms and conditions of supply and other relevant laws.

¶10

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶11

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18^th December, 2012 cbs/ajr

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.37011 of 2012

¶14

18^th December, 2012

¶15

cbs

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah v. The Superintending Engineer

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

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal, At Vijayawada, Krishna

Smt. Mambakam Razia Murthy, Vs Narra Hari Krishna

Sri M.BaI Reddy Vs The Special Commissioner/

B.Maqbool Ahmed, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

Taddi Nagalakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisonal Officer