Allowed

Sundeep Gupta v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021WP/12821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents to release power supply to the petitioner's premises, requiring an undertaking to produce an occupancy certificate. It held that failure to produce the certificate would allow respondents to take appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release power supply to the petitioner's premises, subject to compliance of terms and production of occupancy certificate within a prescribed period.

Sundeep Gupta Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA r'|'i v^,,Fr (Speciat originat .turisJictiJn]'

¶2

T-UESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONi

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT P ETI ON NO:'12 21 0F o21

¶6

Between:

¶7

QynQe-eq^{c.upta, S/o Sri Chagan Lai Gupta,} aged abour nyo e-z--2s-s7ffa76"h;;'jNj".+5, Jubitee Hiils,Hyderab#0^{vears, occ.Business,}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

L The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, power and Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶11

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana Rep. by its Chairman and fi,4anaging Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶12

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana Rep.,^{by its} Superintending Engineer (Operation) Jubilee Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶13

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{Rep. by its Commissioner, 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 an appropriate^{Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of the Respondents in not releasingthe} powe, suppty to the^{Peiitioners buildings at premises} .^bearing .^{H-No 8-2-} 2g3l82lAl11'gs,^{Plot No.1199, admeasuring1-625sq yards, in the^Layout of,Jubilee} iitt, Co-opurrtive^{House BuildingSociJty, forming part of Sy No'4-03/1^(New} f'f".rzOl of Shaikpet^Vittagl iHakim-pet^{Village), in Ward No B' Block No 2 of GHMC'} Situated at^{Jubilee nitts,'iyJerabaoo at Jioitee Hills, Hyderabad, as illegal'null'} void, arbitrary^{and consequently directthe respondentsto release the power supply} without insisting^{for occupancy certificate'}

¶16

IA NO :1 OF²⁰²¹

¶17

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} p"titidn, ir,"-Hign^{court maybe preasedto direct} the affidavit^{filed in suppori ot t-n} " -to release the -power supply to the Petitioners the 2nd and^{3rd n"sponOenit} buildings^{at premisesn"rii"g ;Ni" a -z-iss&ztntl'199'Plot No '1 199' admeasuring} 1625 sq^{yards, in the Layoui of Jubilee Hills co-operative House Building Society'} forming^{part of Sy.No.4OS/1"iN;* N".tZO) of Sf,ri(petVillage (HakimpetVillage)' in} ward No.B,^{Block No.2 or'cr-r-ntb,'6it*tedat JubileeHills'Hyderabad at Jubilee} Hills, Hyderabad.

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl'B MANOJ KUMAR} - ;;;;;;i^{for the Respondent No' 1: GP FoR E!E19Y} Counsel^{for the Respono""i fti""' z a S' SRt' R' VINoD REDDY' SC FOR}

¶19

I:::3":!l' the^{Respondent No' 4: sRr' PASHAMKRIsHNAREDDY'sc FoR} GHMC

¶20

The Court^{made the following:}

¶21

THE^{HON'BLE SI(l JUSTICEA'ABHISHEKREDDY} ON^No. 1,.2821o f20²¹ WRI^T

¶22

ORD^ER:

¶23

i{eard^{the learned counsel {or the petitioner' the learne} d Government^{preader for Energyfor respondent No.1, sri R Vinod} Reddy,^{the learned Standing Counseifor 'i'elanganaStateSouthern} power Distribution^{CompanyLimitedappearingf or respondent} Nos.2 and^{3, and Sri I'asham KrishnaReddy' the learned Standing} Counsel^{appearing for respondent No 4With their consent'the} \ryrit ['etition^{is disposeciof at the stageof admissionitself'}

¶24

When the matter^{is taken up for hearing'the learned counsel} Ior the^{petitioner has submittedthat the issueraised in the present} rvrit petition^{is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court} in W.P.No.26085^{oi 2018, tl.ated26'07'2018'and W'P No 6030 of 2020'} datcd 20.04.2020.

¶25

'fhe abo',,e saicl submission is not clisputed by^{the learned} Standing Counsels^{appearing for the responclentsherein'}

¶26

In view of the^{same and for the reasons alike in the order} d.ated.26.07.2018,^{passed in W.P.No.260B5of 2018, the presentWrit} Petition is clisposed^{of clirectingthe respondents to release the} power supply to^{tht: premiscs of the petitioner' subject to} compliance of^{the terms and conditions and on furnishingan} undertaking to^{produci-:the Occupancy Certificate frorrthe} concerned Municipal^{(lorporation,withina prescribed period' and if}

¶27

¶28

no such Occupancy Certilicate is pro<Juced within such perioci, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. Further, this order does not preclude the official respondents from reiecting the application made by the petitioner, if it is found that the subject property is a vacant land and no structure rs rn existence.

¶29

The miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand

¶30

closed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶31

Sd/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' rLSECTION OFFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

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

¶34

2, The Chairman and lVanaging Director, Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana, [v]int Compound, Hyderabad.

¶35

The Superintending Engineer^(Operation), Southern^{Power Distribution Company} Ltd., of Telangana, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶36

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad^{IVunicipalCorporation, TankBund,} Hyderabad.

¶37

One CC to Sri. B [r,4anoj Kumar,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶38

One CC to Sri.^R. Vinod^{Reddy, SC for TSSPDCL (OPUC)}

¶39

One CC to Sri, Pasham^{KrishnaReddy,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶40

B. Two CCs to GP^{for Energy,HighCourt for the State of Telangana' [OUT]}

¶41

Two CD Copies.

¶42

(along with a copy of order dated^{2610712018 in WP'No'26085 of 2018')}

PN/

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0810612021

ORDER

WP.No.12821 of 2021

1dE S T.4
(
1',.'
o
11JUN2O2I .tE
*

¶50

Disposing of the Wp Without costs.

¶51

¶52

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACI{A]VDRA RAO WRIT PETITIoIv No.26085 of 2078

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

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^{Counsel for} Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation, appearingfor 4th} respondent.

¶55

It is stated by learned^{counsel appearing for the} petitioner as well as Sri R.Vinod^{Reddy, Standingcounsel} appearing for respondent^{Nos.l to 3 that the issue in this} Writ Petition is covered^{by the order of thisCourt} dt.23.03.2018 in^{W.P.No.9789 0f 2018.}

¶56

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 petitionersubjectto the} compliance^{of the terms and conditionsand on furnishing an} undertaking to^{producethe occupancy certificate from 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 accordance^{with law. There shall be no order as to} CoStS

¶57

¶58

4 Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,} shall stand dismissed.

¶59

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶60

26tr,July, 2018.

¶61

gra

Sundeep Gupta v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundeep Gupta v. The State of Telangana

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

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana

Y.Vivekananda Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syed Basheer Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s R.C. Developers Vs State of Telangana