Allowed

Vishnu Constructios v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 3 Others

Telangana HC3 Jun 2021WP/12633/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of W.P.No.12633 of 2021 at the stage of admission. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing electricity authorities and the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to provide a connection without an occupancy certificate. Relying on prior orders by this Court, the bench directed the respondents to release power supply contingent upon compliance with terms and furn

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondents to release power supply subject to compliance with terms and furnishing an undertaking to produce an occupancy certificate within a prescribed period.

Vishnu Constructios Vs The Southern… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY,^{THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶5

WRIT P ETITI^{ONNOt 12633 0F 2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vishnu Constructions,^ReP bvB . Davanand S/o^{B. Ramulu, Age- 67 years'} Occ: Business^{R/o l -5-102} 6,P roIr..rt. zo^{part. Maruthi Nagar, Kothape,....rrr,r,o*=*}

¶8

AND

¶9

l.ThesouthernPowerDistributioncompanyofTelanoanaStateLtd''Rep'byits chairman "no^{vanasi;;-#;l:#i;;Isiis-corporaieoffice at 6-1-50,Mint} Comoound,^{HYderabad500UUbJ'}

¶10

Comoound,^{HYderabad500UUbJ'}

¶11

1. The bivisionrr^{engine Jr]5"p'eiliions_a.^oornagarDivision TSS PDCLSaroornagar}

¶12

The Assistant^{oivisro#t'ir{gi;;;:'SE/OFSiioornasatAE /OP Kothapet}

¶13

^^{H:E?g[..t'i;?T[1t""'..unicipal} Tank Bund, Hyderabad^{corporation'Rep bv the commissioner'} ...RESPONDENTS^Near

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

PetitionunderArticle226ol|heconstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court may be pleased} to issue^{it a writ order or direction more particurarryone in the natureof wRlr oF} MANDAI\ilUS^{directingthe respondents'1to 3 to provide electricity connection to the} house^{property house bearingNo 1-5-1026' on Plot No' 26' admeasuring603} Sq.yds,^{situatedat MaruthiNagar' in SurveyNo' 176 of Kothapet village'Uppal'} Bounded^{by North: H No'1-5-1027;South: H'No 1-5-1024and 25; East:} H.No. 1-5-101^{7 a d187i West: 30 feet Wide road Without insisting upon} occupancy^{Certificate fromthe 4th respondent by holding that the refusal to provide} electricity^{connection to the above referred premises as illegal and arbitrary'}

¶16

lA NO: 1^{OF 2021}

¶17

petition under section 1s1 cpc^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} tn" attiO"uit^{filed in supporl of the petition' the High Court maybe pleased to direct} the respondents^{to provide electricityconnectionto the house property house} bearing^{No. 1-5-1026,on prot No.26, admeasuring603 5q.yds, situatedat Maruthi} Nagar, in^{Survey No '176 of Kothapet village' Uppal'Bounded by North:} H.No.1-5-1027;^{South: H'No'1-5-1024and 25; East: H No l-5-1017 and187;} West: 30^{feet Wide road Without insisting upon occupancy certificatefrom 4th} respondent^{pending disposalof mainwrit petition'}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SMT' THAKUR ROOPASINGH}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1to3: SRIR' VINOD REDDY' SC FORTSSPDCL}

¶20

counsel^{for the Respondent No'4: t*' t#F$ltPHftt3HAKARREDDY'}

¶21

The Court^{at the stageof admissionmadethe following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.12633 of 2O2l

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard the learncd counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing counsel lor Telangana State Southern Por.r,er Distribution Company Limited appearing for respondent l\os,I to 3, and Sri Sampath Prabhakar l?eddy, Iearned Standing counsel, appearing lbr respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶26

When the matrer is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel lor the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarcly covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.260B5 of 2018, dated 26.02,2018, and, W.P.No.6030 of 2O2O, datcd 20.O4.2020.

¶27

The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents herein.

¶28

In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the order dated 26.07.2O18, passed in W.P.No.26085 of 2018, the present Writ Petition is drspose d of directing the rcspondents to release the power supply to thc premises oI the petitioner, subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate lrom the concerned Municipal Corporation, within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is op<:n Lo the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance rviLl-r iaw. I,'r-rltht:r, this ordcr rjocs not preclude tl-re official respondents frorn rejccting the appiication made by the

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

|To,
1.
2.
3.
+.
5.
O.
i.
|//TRUE COPY//
SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI
ASSISTANTREGIS
SECTIO
FFICER
The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Companyof
Telangana State Ltd., having its Corporate officeat64-50,^lt/lintCompound,
Hyderabad5000063.
The Divisional Engineer, Operation Saroornagar^DivisionfSqPD.CL^Saroornagar
The Assistant Divlsional Engineer,^{SE/OP SaroornagarAE/OPKothapet}
TSSPDCLSaroornagar.
tfreCommissioner,dreater^{Hyderabadlr4unicipalCorporation,NearTankBund,}
Hvderabad.
O'neCCtoSmtThakur^{Roopa Singh, Advocate}[OPUC]
OneCCto Sri^{R.Vinod Reddv, SCFORTSSPDCLtOPU9.l}
O;;CciosriSampath^{Prabhakar Reddv,SCFOR GHMC[OPUC]}| |---|---| ||(Alongwithacopy of order^{inW.P.No.260B5 of 2018, dated2607'2018)}| |B
CHR|.Two CDCoPies|

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310612021

ORDER

W.P.No.12633 ot 2021

1 IA I€
(
* ><br>()0 0I JUN 2021
\i .O
a) ";)

¶39

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

¶40

(,?'.x &r"-n 4ta'

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26O85 of 2018

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern power Distribution Corporation Limited, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, Standing Counsei for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for 4th respondent.

¶44

It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R.Vinod Reddy, Standing counsel 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.97B9 0f 20 18.

¶45

Therefore for reasons alike, this Writ Petition is^also disposed of with a direction to the^{respondents to release the} power supply to the premises of the petitioner subject^{to the} compliance of the terms and conditions^{and on furnishing an} undertaking to produce the occupancy^{certificate from the} concerned Municipal^{Corporationwithin a prescribedperiod,} and if no such occupancy^{certificateis produced within such} period, it is open to the respondents^{to take appropriateaction} in accordance with law.^{There shall be no order as to costs}

¶46

¶47

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending' if any'} shali stand^dismissed'

¶48

M.S.RAMACHAND^{RA RAO, J}

¶49

26th July,^2018.

¶50

gra

Vishnu Constructios v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Constructios v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 3 Others

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

B.Shankar Naik Vs The State of Telangana

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

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

M/S Avanii Meadows Private Limited. Vs The State Of Telangana

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s. Sethus Building Army Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others