Disposed

Sri Venkateswara Oil Mill v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021WP/17817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an oil mill owner against the district electricity officers for disconnecting power supply without notice. The Court directed the officers to provide power for one month strictly for shifting machinery following a closure order, subject to an undertaking that production would not resume.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 2 to 4 to provide power for one month upon executing an undertaking for machinery shifting only.

Sri Venkateswara Oil Mill Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF^NOVEI/IBER TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICET.VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

RIT PE tTro :17817 OF 20 1

¶7

Between:

¶8

g*;[#,hfl H**fr #fr#j{t1i]1li$:.,ffi^ii#:lr

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana,^{Representedby its Principal.Secretary' Energy and} Enirtoii.dni^{depa rtmeht' Secretar'nt Buildings' Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Superintending^{Engineer (Operations)' Telangana State Southern P-ower} ' oilirlti,liir'C,jmpinv uij., Srio'irnagj' cjrcte.' 10-39 No 2' Plot^{No 10' sai} il;"r# ffi;"y,^{Alr<ipirti i Roads, RansaReddvDistrict'}

¶13

The Divislonal^{Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company} Ltd.. saroornagar^{circte,hffi'tG.2, iGillo.i'0, sai Nagar colony,Alkapuri X} Roads, Ranga-ReddY^District'

¶14

The Assistant^{Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL' Champapet' Ranga Reddy} District.

¶15

The Telanqana The Telanqana^{State Pollution Conhol Boarg'} luP'^{Uy its Environmental}

¶16

The Telanqana The Telanqana^{State Pollution Conhol Boarg'} " i'iii."i,?,'R"sionii omce-t, Ransa Reddv District'

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tn""rfiiiuiiii}^{r"J$rlrewitn, the Hioh court mav be pleased to} issue a Writ,^{order o'. OirJ"t'iii, ''oreparticularly oni in the nature of Writ of} Mandamus,^{declaring tn"} "Jti"o"^{& ine srd ano 4th resoondents in disconnecting the} Power Supply^{bearingS.ftfo'+SiAOf Og0 of the petitioner Oil lvlill' as arbitrary'} irregular,^{besides ,grin,tpin"iprls oi naruraljustice and consequentlydirect to} ,ir6i. til"^{powersu-pply to ihe petitioneroil Mill' forthwith'}

¶19

lA NO:¹ o^{F 2021}

¶20

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit^{fired in supportot ii-," p"i,tion,"tn6Hlgh court mav be pteasedto directthe} respondents^{3 and 4 to r"riorl-ir,"power sippry bearing s.No.451801090 of the} ;:iiil;;;^{oil Milt, pendingdisposal or the writ Petition'}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl'P RAVI SHANKER}

¶22

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No' 1: GP FORENERGY}

¶23

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos' 2 to 4: SRI' R' VINOD REDDY'SC FOR} TSSPDCL

¶24

P. SHIV^{SHANKAR, SC FOR PCB} Counsel^{forthe Respondent No' 5: SRI'}

¶25

The Court^{madethe following:}

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR} WR]iT PETITI^{ON No. 178 t7 0f 2021}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

1 This Writ Petition^{is filed to declarethe action of the} respondents 3^{and 4 in disconnectingthe powersupply to} the service connection^{of the petitioner'soil mill vide} S.No.451801090^{withoutissuing any notice, as illegal and} to direct the respondents^{to restore power supply to the} petitioner's oil mil1, forthwith.

¶32

Heard Sri P.Ravi^{Shanker,learned counsel for the} petitioner, learned Government^{Pleader forEnergr} appearing for 1"t respondent,^{Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel appearing^{for respondents2 to 4, and Sri} P.Shiva Shankar, learned^{counselappearingfor5th} respondent. With their consent,^{this Writ Petition is taken} up for hearing and disposed^of.

¶33

Learned counsel for the^{petitionercontends that the} power connection provided to the^{petitioner's unit, namely} oil mill, has been disconnected by the^{respondentswithout} issuing any notice to the petitioner, though^{petitioner is} regular in payment of bills towards eners/ charges, as and when issued by the respondents.

¶34

4, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel would submit that disconnection of power supply to the

¶35

¶36

¶37

petitioner's unit was on the basis of the closure order issued by the sth respondent-pollution contror Board, dt.31.03.2021.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the closure order issued by the 5th respondent an appeal has been preferred before the Competent Authority and the same is pending. However, there is no stay of operation of the said closure order issued by the 5th re spondent.

¶39

He would further contend that^{even for dismantling} the unit and for shifting of existing^{equipment from the} present location also power would^{be required and for the} said purposes,^{petiti.onerwouldapproachthe respondents-} authorities and^{execute an undertaking mentioning the} period for which^{powerconnection is required to enable the} petitioner to arrange^{for shifting of the existing plant &} machinery from^{the subject premises'He prays the Court} to direct the^{respondents to considerthe said request'}

¶40

Having^{regard to the submissions made above and} taking note^{of the fact that petitioneris only seeking power} supply to^{enable the petitionerto shift the machinery from} the existing^{location in pursuanceof the closureorder} issued by^{the 5th respondent, respondents 2 to 4 are hereby} directedtoconsidertherequestofthepetitionerfor

¶41

¶42

providing^{powerconnectionfor a period of one month' upon} the petitioner^{executing an undertakingthat same would be} utilized only^{for the purpose of shiftingthe plant &} machinery,^{anrl other things from the location and not for} running the industry.^{It is mad'eclear that neither providing} of electricity^{connectionby the respondents nor the} petitioner giving an undertaking^{regardingutilization of the} power connection for shifting the^{machinery,will entitle} either parties to claim equities^{in the appealpreferred} challenging the closure order issued by the^Sth respondent.

¶43

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. l\o order as to costs.

¶44

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if aly, shall stand closed.

SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Energy and Environment Department, Secrbtariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶51

The Superintending Engineer (Operations), Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Saroornagar Circle, Road No.2, Plot No,10, Sai Nagar Colony, Alkapuri X Roads, Ranga Reddy District,

¶52

The Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Saroornagar Circle, Road No.2, Plot No.10, Sai Nagar Colony, Alkapuri X Roads, Ranga Reddy District.

¶53

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶54

One CC to Sri. P Ravi Shanker, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

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

¶56

One CC to Sd,P, Shiva Shankar, SC for PCB (OPUC)

¶57

Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Cou( for the State of Teiangana. [OUT]

¶58

Two CD Copies.

¶59

10, One Spare Copy.

PM .'\ .---

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/11/2021

ORDER

WP.No.17B17 ot 2021

$E sIArC'
(
c!7
co 2l No|?0fl
+ {1
L,/,-7
i/
rz

¶67

_Disposing^{of ther} Wp Without costs.

¶68

C'\ :)

Sri Venkateswara Oil Mill v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateswara Oil Mill v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M. Preethy Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Kazim All Ghazi Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

R.Srinivasulu Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others

G. Heeralal, Vs The State of Telangana

Billakuri Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Devender Sharma Vs The govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary