Partly allowed

Vaja Mallikarjun Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC2 Sept 2020WP/14557/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for release of power supply without occupancy certificate. Court disposed of petition by directing respondents to release supply subject to undertaking to produce certificate within six months, relying on a previous order in another writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to release power supply subject to undertaking to produce occupancy certificate within six months, or face appropriate action.

Vaja Mallikarjun Goud Vs The State of Telangana and 3… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STAI:,9I, TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Spec ia I orisinat ur.r-"aiJtilii ^'

¶2

wEDNESDAy, THE,q^Eg.of D DAy oF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWEN'r'V '

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 14557 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vaja. Maltikarjun Goud. Si e m p r o ye e, ni 6i n rn l i S _ zil i,r j!,

¶8

o "" nr,l,,, uhfltjx * rIfi :1ft , :fi:1,81#: ;,? J,e.?l,ii ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

¶11

1. ;*,pu, 5,g"+^{g,:1rll,6,"ffii:ru1fi ::: H"; : :} ^^H:; Ensineer (opeia6;,j i""liiY,i"tt3ffi:r"l]fuJJJr?ansana, Rep by its Divisionar

¶12

c o rpo ra t i o n E; p;' ;; it''"dl,in i,, io n",.

¶13

il,5fl iffil Y,: ili:lo' T :.,: ff :.J,

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of l'4andamus decraring the action of the Respondents in not rereasing the power suppry to the petitioner buirdings at premises property bearing prot No.72, total admeasuring 200 sq yards, in Sy.No.1B0/8, Situated at Bachupally Viltage, Pragathinagar Grampanchayat, eutubulapur I,4andar, Ivredchar-N/arkajgiri District as illegal' null, void, arbitrary and consequenfly direct the respondents to rerease the power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate.

¶15

IANO: 1OF2 020

¶16

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3'd Respondents to release the power suppry to the petitioner buildings at premises Property bearing plot No.72, total admeasuring 200 sq yards, in Sy.No.1B0/B, Situated at Bachupally Village, Pragathinagar Grampanchayat, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. MANOJ KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRI R. VINOD REDDY,

¶20

S,C. FOR TRANSCO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI N, PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETITION^{No.t4s51 0F 2020}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition^{is filed for the following relief:}

¶26

"...to issue an^{appropriateWrit order or direction more} particularly one in the nature of Writ^{of Mandarnusdeclaringthe} action of the Respondents in^{not releasingthe pou'er supplyto the} petitioner buildings at premises Property bearing Plot^No.72,total adnreasuring 200 sq.^yards in Sy. No.l80/8,^{situatedat Bachupally} Village, Pragathinagar Grampanchayat, Qutubullapur Mandal Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal, null, void, arbitrary^and consequentiy direct the responlents to release the power supply without insisting for occupancy certifipate..."

¶27

When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 1 1.06.2020 passed by this Courl in W.P.No.7997 of 2020.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader for Energy, appearing for the I'r respondent, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern power Distribution Company Limited, appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri N. praveen Kumar. learned Standing Counsel for Nizampet Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.4, do not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶29

In view of the above, for the reasons alike in the said order, this writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to rerease

¶30

¶31

power supply to the premises of the petitioner subject to the compliance of the. terms ahd. conditions and on fumishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate from the Nizampet Municipal Corporation, within a period of six (6) months, and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take apprgpriate action in accordance with law.

¶32

' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶39

The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana, fr,4int Compound, Hyderabad.

¶40

The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana, Jeedimetla Drvision, Medchal.

¶41

4, The Commissroner, Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Nizampet, lVedchalIr/alkajgiri District.

¶42

One CC to Sri B. Manoj Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶44

One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, S.C. for TRANSCO IOPUC]

¶45

One CC to Sri N. Praveen Kumar, S.C. For tr,4unicipa lities [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies.

¶47

(Along with a Copy of the Order dated 11.06.2020 in W.P.No.7997 oI 2020.)

[/P

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912020

ORDER

v*
s
ul
s
s-

WP.No.14557 of²⁰²⁰

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

\
w

¶57

TIIE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.I,AKSHNIAN

¶58

\'RIT I'}E'II-IION No.7997 OF 2()20

¶59

ORDEII:

¶60

-fhis \'rit ['etition is filed fbr thc lbllor.ving relict:

¶61

"..to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction ntore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not receiving the application fbrm and not releasing the power supply to the petitioner House bearing Plot No.265, admeasuring 417 sq. yards in Sy.No.1 l/8, 11/9, ll/10, l1/11, Part of Sy.No.11, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingarnpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply without being influenced by the instructions of the 5tr' respondent. . .."

¶62

When tlie rnatter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the^presentWrit Petition is sqr.rarely covered by the order dated 25.09.2019^passed by this Court in W.P.o.2ll00 ol'2019.

¶63

Govelr.urent Pleacler appearing lbl Energy/r'cspondent^{No.l, Sd} R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel^{for TelanganaState} Southern Power Distribution^{CompanyLirritedappearing for} respondents 2 to 4 and^{Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy,learned} Standing Counsel for^{Creater HyderabadMunicipalCorporation,} appearing for^{respondentNo.5, do not disputethe aforesaid} submission.

¶64

ln view o1'the above. for thc reasons alike in thc said order. this Writ Petitiorr is clisposed of directing the rcsponcients to release individual service connection to the petitioner within a periocl of lbur (4) weeks fiom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, ancl thc same shall be subject to further direction that rnay be issued by the State of Telangana or the Apex Court in the litigation pending befbre it arising out of the order dated 12.09.2012 in Writ Petition No.20407 of2008 and batch.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

J I-JS I-IC I.- K.L,\KS[I }IA\

¶67

Date: 11.06.2020 kvnn

Vaja Mallikarjun Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaja Mallikarjun Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moluguri Vamshi or Vamshi Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Anujh Joshi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Flycon Bricks Industries Vs The State of Telangana adn 4 others

Md Gouse Pasha Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Md Tajuddin Vs The State of Telangana

B.Harinath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana