Disposed

Srinivasula Radha Krishna Murthy v. The Asst,Divisional Engineer, Operations , Central

Telangana HC2 Dec 2014WP/12095/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted the petitioners a three-month extension to submit a representation challenging the demand for additional electricity charges, directing the respondent not to disconnect the service during this period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners given three months to submit representation; service connections not to be disconnected pending consideration.

Srinivasula Radha Krishna Murthy Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12095 of 2008

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondent.

¶4

2. The first petitioner is a practising advocate at Kodad, Nalgonda District and he constructed a house for his residential purpose in the year 1995. He applied for electricity service connection and on the said application the respondent released a domestic connection with SC.No.12165/1. While so, the respondent passed an order on 13.05.2008 stating that he inspected the premises of the petitioners on that date and noticed that they are utilizing the contracted load of 3.98 KW as against the sanctioned load of 1.00 KW and they were asked to pay additional consumption charges of Rs.3,900/-, Rs.3900/- and Rs.2,600/- respectively for regularizing the services. Challenging the same and another demand in respect of Service Connection No.3000, the present writ petition was filed.

¶5

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶6

submits that the petitioners were not utilizing more than the contracted load and the assumption of the respondent is not correct.

¶7

4. Since it is a notice issued to the petitioners seeking regularization of the contracted load, the petitioners are at liberty to submit appropriate representation to the respondent for consideration if the petitioners are not utilizing more than the contracted load. The respondents shall consider the representation if the petitioners submit such a representation and take necessary action for regularization. Till such time the service connections of the petitioners shall not be disconnected. The petitioners are given time of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for submitting appropriate representation if they are not utilizing more than the contracted load and their service does not require any regularization.

¶8

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

¶9

RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶10

23 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

A. Date: December 02, 2014 BSB

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.12095 of 2008

¶13

Date: December 02, 2014

¶14

BSB

Srinivasula Radha Krishna Murthy v. The Asst,Divisional Engineer, Operations , Central

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasula Radha Krishna Murthy v. The Asst,Divisional Engineer, Operations , Central

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

K.A.P. Thrimurthulu Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Smt. M.Govindamma, Vs The Commissioner

Mr.Mirza Dilwar baig Vs The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,Ranga Reddy

Sri Ganga Mahal Theatre, Gudivada, Krishna District, Vs The Joint Collector and Licensing Authority

M/s. Coromandel Cements Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Vs The Ap Transco, rep. by Chairman and Managing Director

M/s. Surya Pvc Cable Industries, Rep by Prop Mandapu Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation rep by its Chairman