Disposed

Adviti Constructions v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Telangana HC2 Jun 2021WP/12508/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 12508 of 2021 at admission stage by applying earlier orders on identical issues, directing respondents to release power supply subject to undertaking for occupancy certificate production.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed at admission directing respondents to release power supply subject to undertaking to produce occupancy certificate within prescribed period.

Adviti Constructions Vs The Southern Power… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

G AN^A HIGH^{cou Rr t} 11 T.lt" $tlt^S.,t^l:) tspeciir'dii^{ginilJ urisdiction l}

¶2

*'RNET,S.Iift S=^RB\i"'t'1'?Li.B-=

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTTGEA'ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶5

w IT PE^TITIONN 1 50 oF2⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Adviti constructions,^{Rep- bv'- r.har!?pslli} 0i.*unuir,it-Ase-^{sz years' occ' BusinessR/o} l)!l?3??i,ltnt-13-^1"T,3"11fl?J: HYderabad. ...PETITIONER

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

l.TheSouthernPowerDistributionCompanyofTelanoanaStateLtd,Rep.byits chairman and^{Managing r;;';il'. h;;i[giis-corporaieoffice at 6-1-50,Mint} Compound,^{HYderabad5000063'}

¶11

The Divisional^Ensineer iEi'Jibp"'ution^{City ll Opp'VST' Azamabad'} TSSPDCL HYderabad-20-engineer, SE/Op/GHYD Central AE Ramalayam-78

¶12

il""A;.isi;nl^oiri.-ion"r TSSPDCL Hvderabad.

¶13

4 The Greater ilvderabad^Muni cipal Corporation,^{Rep. by the Commissioner,} Near Tank Bund,^Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be pleased to} issue it a writ order^{or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF} MANDAMUS directing^{the respondents1 to 3 to provide electricity connection to the} house property house beaming^{No. 2-2-113713111,P.No. 79, admeasuring454.33} Sq.yds, siiuateO at^{New Nallakunta, Hyderabad and bounded by NolthP No TB'} H i'ro.Z-Z-r B7l3t1E. South. H.No.^{2-2-11371311, East.P No 76'} H.No.2-2-1 1371311t1, West.^{25'-0" wide road, Without insisting upon occupancy} Certificate from the 4th respondent^{by holdingthat the refusal to provide electricity} connection to the above referred^{premisesas illegaland arbitrary.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 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 respondents to provide electricity to the house property house bearing No.2-2-1 13713111, P.No. 79, admeasuring 454.33 Sq.yds, situated at New Nallakunta, Hyderabad and bounded by North. P.No.78, H.No. 2-2-11371311E: South. H.No. 2-2-1 1371311: East. P.No. 76, H.No. 2-2-1137131111; West. 25-0" wide road. without insisting upon occupancy certificate from 4th respondent pending disposal of main writ petition and deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. THAKUR ROOPA SINGH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt PASHAM KRISHNA REDDy,

¶20

The Court at the stase of admission made the r",,"::J,"j-"r::'

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

VIRIT PETITIO N No.125 08 of 2027

¶24

Hearcl the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, Iearned Standing counsel lor Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, anci Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶25

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel lor rhe petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petiiion is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court rn W.l'.No.26085 of 2018, dated 26,07.2O\8, and W.P.i\o.6030 of 2020, dated 20.O4.2020.

¶26

'lhe above said subrnission ts not disputed bv the learned Standing Counse^L appearing^{for the respondentsherern}

¶27

In view of the sarre and lor^{the reasons alike in the order} clal.ccl 26.0'7.20 li3^{passerd in W.l' No.26085 of 2018, the prcstnl} !'/rii Petition is clrsposed^{o1'directingthc respondents to releasc the} por,,'er supply to the^{premises ofthe} petitioner, subjecr^to and conditions and on furnishing^an corlpliance of t}-re^terms thc occupanc)' certilicatc frc.,m^the undcrtaking to Producc concerned Municipal^{Corporation,within a prescribed period,and} if no such occupancy^{certificateis producedwithin such period' it} is open to the^{respondents to take appropriate action' in} accordance with law.^{F'urther, this orderdoes not preclude the} official respondents^{from rejectingthe application madeby the}

¶28

¶29

petitioner, if it is found that the subject property is a vacant land and no structure is in cxistencc.

¶30

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶31

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT R GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶33

To.'"'t. Th" Chairman and lvlanaging Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of ' i;t.6; Siate r-to,-r'ini"riits^{Corporate office at 6-1-50,MintCompound'} Hvderabad 5000063.

¶34

ifr;"Dri.i;""1^{engineer (Elect), Operation City ll Opp'VST' Azamabad'} TSSPDCL HYderabad-20

¶35

:. i6Jnssistanl-oivisionat^{rngineer, SE/Op/GHyDCentral AE Ramalayam-78} TSSPDCL HYderabad.

¶36

iil6;;isiionei^{cieater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,NearTank Bund'} Hvderabad.

¶37

. Oie CC to Smt.^{Thakur Roopa Singh, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶38

on; aC io Sri^{n. Vinod Reddy, SC-for TSSPDCL, Ad-voggte IOPU.^CI.} .^. 7. O;; Ca io Sri Casr,am^{Kirhsria Reddv, SC for GHMC, Advocate[OPUC]} 8. Two CD Copies

¶39

(A long with a copy of order^{dt:261712018in W.P.No.26085of 2018)} sm ..\ .}-

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.12508 of 2021

,1. ffi;_<br>/r'.,.
//l
li3 0il 421 il
li --
. /,

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE YIIP AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

c s$a b a

¶47

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEM.S.RAMACHANDRARAO} WRIT PETITION No.26085 of²⁰¹⁸

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

Heard counsel for the^{petitioner,Sri R' VinodReddy,} Standing Counsel for^{TelanganaState Southern Power} Distribution Corporation^{Limited, appearingfor respondents} 1 to 3, and Sri^{L.VenkateshwarRao, Standing Counsel for} Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation, appearingfor 4th} respondent.

¶50

It is stated^{by learned counsel appearing for the} petitioner as well as^{Sri R.Vinod Reddy, Standingcounsel} appearing for^{respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the issue in this} Writ Petition is^{covered by the order of this Court} dt.23.03.2018^{in W.P.No.9789 of 2Ol8'}

¶51

Therefore for^{reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also} disposed of^{with a direction to the respondents to releasethe} power supply to^{the premises of the petitionersubjectto the} compliance^{of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an} undertaking^{to producethe occupancy certificatefrom the} concerned Municipal^{Corporationwithin a prescribed period'} and if no^{such occupancy certificateis produced within such} period, it is open^{to the respondents to take appropriate} action in^{accordancewith law' There shallbe no order as to} costs

¶52

¶53

if any, 4 Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending}

¶54

shali stand^dismissed

¶55

M.S.RAMACHANDRA^{RAO, J}

¶56

26th July,²⁰¹⁸

¶57

gra

Adviti Constructions v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adviti Constructions v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. B. Padma Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited.

Yedla Chandra Reddy Vs the State of Telangana, And 7 Others

Smt. Sambaraju Saramma Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

B.Shankar Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Madire Prabhu Lingam Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 Others

M. Hari Shankar Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 others