Dismissed

Mohd. Mazheruddin s/o Mohd. Zahooruddin v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Telangana HC24 Oct 2013WP/30439/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging notices for payment of electricity charges. Holding there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondents (Power House/Commission), and noting no eviction action was taken, the Court observed the appropriate remedy was a civil suit. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition and interim application dismissed as wholly misconceived and infructuous.

Mohd. Mazheruddin s/o Mohd. Zahooruddin Vs Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30439 of 2013

¶2

Date:24.10.2013

¶3

Between: Mohd. Mazheruddin, S/o Mohd. Zahooruddin

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And:

¶6

The AP Public Service Commission, Hyderabad, Reptd by its Secretary, and three others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri G.Vivekanandu Standing Counsel for APPSC

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notices, dated 29.05.2013 and 21.10.2013, of respondent No.2.

¶11

This Writ Petition has a litigious background. The petitioner was inducted in possession of a part of the premises, belonging to respondent No.1, by respondent No.3 for running a Photocopy and Stationary Center. An agreement was entered on 06.08.2007 between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in this regard, whereunder the petitioner agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,300/-. As the petitioner was consuming the electricity supplied to respondent No.1, for non-payment of the electricity charges, the room was locked by the officials of respondent No.1 on 22.04.2012. Questioning the said

¶12

action, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17764 of 2012. After hearing both the parties, this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition by order, dated, 01.10.2012, wherein this Court has placed on record the readiness of the petitioner to pay the electricity charges and directed respondent No.1 to open the seal and lock of the leased room and issue a notice to the petitioner after taking the reading from the sub-meter in the leased premises and that on the petitioner paying the electricity charges intimated by respondent No.1, it shall permit the petitioner to resume the business. A direction was also issued to the petitioner to pay the monthly electricity charges as recorded in the sub-meter in future till the period of agreement comes to an end.

¶13

The petitioner filed Contempt Case No.701 of 2013 alleging willful disobedience of the said order. The said Contempt Case was dismissed by order, dated 22.07.2013, wherein liberty was given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy if he feels aggrieved by the revised assessment of electricity charges at Rs.73,530/made by respondent No.1. Evidently, the petitioner has neither questioned the said assessment nor paid the same, except a part of the payment which was made based on the pre-revised assessment. A notice was issued by respondent No.2 on 29.05.2013, wherein while referring to the revised assessment, it was stated that the sum of Rs.12,921/- offered by the petitioner through a Demand Draft dated 30.04.2013, was returned and the petitioner was asked to pay the entire sum of Rs.73,530/in lump sum by 30.06.2013. It is also mentioned in the said notice that the tenure to run the Photocopy Center under the agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent No.3 expired by July, 2012. In the second notice issued on 21.10.2013, respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.73,530/-, failing

¶14

which, appropriate legal steps will be initiated against him at his risk and costs. Questioning both these notices, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶15

After hearing Sri M.Karuna Sagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perusing the record, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2, but the fact remains that the premises in occupation of the petitioner belongs to respondent No.1 though the same appears to be under the control of respondent No.3.

¶16

The inter se dispute between the petitioner on one side and respondent No.3 on the other with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner to occupy the premises beyond the tenure of the agreement between him and respondent No.3 can be decided only by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. At any rate, except mentioning in notice, dated 29.05.2013, that the tenure of the agreement has expired by July, 2012, no coercive steps were contemplated by respondent No.2 for eviction of the petitioner. In the second notice, dated 21.10.2013, respondent No.2 has merely reiterated the demand made in the notice, dated 29.05.2013, for payment of the disputed electricity charges, making it clear therein that if the petitioner fails to make such payment, appropriate legal steps will be initiated against him. It is, thus, clear that so far, no action has been initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner for his eviction and the petitioner was only cautioned that appropriate legal steps will be initiated against him in the event of his failure to make payment of the disputed electricity charges.

¶17

In the light of these facts, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent Nos.1 and 2. If the petitioner seriously

¶18

disputes the electricity charges, the appropriate remedy for him is to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Even if, in future, any threat of eviction arises from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner can avail the common law remedy of filing a civil suit before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

¶19

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶20

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.37789 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 24^th October, 2013 DR

Mohd. Mazheruddin s/o Mohd. Zahooruddin v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mazheruddin s/o Mohd. Zahooruddin v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

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

D.Lakshmi Kumari Vs D.Poorchandra Rao

M/s. Siddardha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri.v.Bhaskar

Mogalakurthi Appala Ramarao, Vs The Agent to the Government

Blessmen Welfare Out-Sourcing Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N.Srinivas Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana Udyogula Sangahm Vs Vice Chairman and Managing Director