Writ petition challenging demand for additional consumption security deposit was disposed of following a common order, directing adjustment of excess paid amount in future charges.
Respondents directed to adjust excess of half two-months deposit paid by petitioner in future consumption charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.39236 of 2015
ORDER:
Heard Smt. Jyothieswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in demanding additional consumption security deposit from the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a common order of this Court in W.P. No.37713 of 2014 and batch dt.26.08.2015.
4. In the said order, it was directed that the petitioner shall pay half of the additional consumption deposit amount demanded by the respondents. But, in the instant case, the amount collected by the respondents towards consumption security deposit is sufficient to meet the advance payment requirements and that Rs.13,90,994/has to be adjusted in the future consumption charges.
5. In the circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of in accordance with and in terms of the order in W.P. No.37713 of 2014 and batch dt.26.08.2015 with a further direction to the respondents to adjust the amount in excess of half of two months consumption deposit, paid by the petitioner, in the future consumption charges of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 03-12-2015
siva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief regarding the demand for additional consumption security deposit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Common Order in W.P. No.37713 of 2014Followed¶5
W.P. No.37713 of 2014, batch dt. 26.08.2015
Petitioner
Respondents
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
