Dismissed

G. Pandurayya, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.,(Tsspdcl)

Telangana HC5 Dec 2018WP/40686/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the disconnection of electricity supply to a barber shop. The Court held that since the property owner had parted with possession to the GHMC for road widening, the action taken by the corporation to request power disconnection could not be faulted.

What the court decided

AI extract

G. Pandurayya, Vs The Southern Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 40686 of 2018

¶3

Date : 5.12.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

G Pandurayya S/o Yenkayya aged 62 years Occ Business Tenant of Shop No 221075/1/6/5 Near 6 No X Road Bagh Amberpet Hyderabad R/o H No 184446 Aliabad Hyderabad

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd TSSPDCL ep by Chairman and Managing Director FAC Headquarters Hyderabad Telangana & others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 40686 of 2018

¶13

ORAL ORDER:

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent TS-SPDCL.

¶15

Petitioner claims to be running a barber shop in premises bearing No. 2-2-1075/1/6/5, Road No.6, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, leased out to him by 4^th respondent. Alleging that the power connection is disconnected to said premises by TS-SPDCL illegally at the instance of 4^th respondent, this writ petition is filed.

¶16

When the matter is taken up, learned standing counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 informs the Court that property is vested with GHMC and GHMC is widening the road and as per instructions of GHMC power supply connection is disconnected to petitioner. Having regard to this submission, GHMC was impleaded as 5^th respondent by order dated 14.11.2018 and learned standing counsel for GHMC was directed to obtain instructions.

¶17

Today, learned standing counsel for GHMC produced photo copy of documents evidencing acceptance of owner of property for parting with the property on receiving compensation mutually agreed upon; that compensation of Rs.69,04,156/- was paid and possession was given to GHMC.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that there is inter-se dispute between petitioner and 4^th respondent and 4^th respondent filed suit for eviction and the same is pending and that being so, petitioner cannot be evicted from the premises.

¶19

The inter-se dispute between petitioner and 4^th respondent and claim of the petitioner that he is tenant are matters for consideration and resolution between petitioner and 4^th respondent. Property belongs

¶20

to 4^th respondent and 4^th respondent parted with the same and received the compensation and now property stands vested in GHMC, therefore, action taken by GHMC to request TS-SPDCL to disconnect power supply and TS-SPDCL agreeing to disconnect power supply cannot be faulted. This writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out remedies available to him against 4^th respondent. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

¶21

__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J

¶22

DATE: 5-12-2018 TVK

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 40686 of 2018

¶25

Date : 5.12.2018

G. Pandurayya, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.,(Tsspdcl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G. Pandurayya, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.,(Tsspdcl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Jagannadham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh being

Murukuti Sreenivasulu , Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Murukuti Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bogolu Seetha Rami Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vikram Krishna Rao S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

Smt. T.Koteswaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh