Disposed

Yerrabelli Mamatha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2021WP/1947/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana closed the Writ Petition by an interim order. The Court was informed via affidavit that electricity service connection had already been provided to the petitioner pursuant to a previous interim order dated 24.01.2018, making further orders unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Order closed with no costs awarded as the matter was resolved by prior service connection.

Yerrabelli Mamatha, Vs The State of Telangana — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1947 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

Yerrabelli Mamatha,, Wo Y Harishankar, Aged 41^years, Occ. household,^Fl/o Flat No. 403, Mahalaxmi Estates Block-A, Behind Sanghamitra School Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶10

...pETt,oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

I The State of Telangana, Through its Principal Secretary, Electricity Energy Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited,^{Rep by its} Chairman and [/anaging Director, Mint Compound,^{Khairatabad,Hyderabad,} The Assistant Engineer- Telangana State Southern^{Power Distribution Company} Limited, KPHB colony, Kukatapally, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 Andhra Pradesh Housing board,, Having its Registered^{Office at Gruhakalpa,lr/J} road, Nampally Hyderab-ad. Represented^{by its Vice Chairman and lt/anaging} Director.

¶15

5 Cvberabad Hitch lnteqrated Township^{Deveploment Pvt.Ltd.', Having its} R6gistered Office at no, 1009 Phase^{Xlll,Kukatpally,Hyderabad....RESpoNDENTS}

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to} issue a writ or orders more^{particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus} declaring the action of the second^{and third respondents in not sanctioning electricity} service connection to my^property bearing^{flat no. 4-0607 in sixth floorof Block-A of} Phase Xlll, admeasuring 1550.15 Sq^{feet, in a building named"lndu Fortune Fields-} The Annexe" in survey no. 1009 siuated^{at Kukatpally Housing board, Ranga Reddy} District, and in insisting for^{productionof occupancycertificate, as being arbitrary} and violative of Article 14 of^{the Constitution of lndia and consequently to directthe} second and third respondents to^{sanction the electricity serviceconnectionto my} above mentioned flat

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

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 pleasedto issue interim} directions to the second^{and third respondentsto sanction electricityservice} connection to the^{petitionersflat bearing no. 4-0607 in sixthfloor of Block-Aof Phase} Xlll, admeasuring^{1550.1.5Sq feet, in a building named"lnduFortune Fields- The}

¶19

Annexe" in survey no. 1009 situated at Kukatpally Housing Board, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to occupancy certificate from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AKSHAT SANGHI

¶21

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI C. BUCHI REDDY

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: --

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

?HE }IOIV'BLE SRI JUS?ICE A.AAIilSI{EK REDDY

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.1947 of 2OlA

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.01.2OL8, service connection has been provided to the petitioner.

¶30

In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, no further orders need be passed in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly closed. In case the official respondents intend to take any action, they shall do so strictly in accordance with law after putting the petitioner on notlce.

¶31

The miscellaneous petitions^pending, if^{any, shallstand}

¶32

closed. There shal1 be no order^{as to costs.}

¶33

I I

¶34

SD/.T.KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' I

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To, 1 . The Principal^{Secretary, Electricity Energy Department'State of Telangana} Secretariai,^HYderabad trltanaging^{Director'Telangana,state Southern Power}

¶37

z. it Distribution "'c'ririiariino company^{Lir"ii""o,-H/lini'compo_unlo,.rr,uiratabad.Hvderabad'} 3. The Assistant^{Engineer,. t'e"li;;al;,{eG} 9,"-llJhern^{Power Distributioncompanv} -' 4. The Chairman r-imiteo KpHB^and co-iony,^lr'4anz iif$elhjllX,{3fl..Trrro".h Housing.board,, Having its Reoistered^{office at 6YJti'i;l;;:N/iL loio' Namp'llvHvderbabd}

¶38

1. The cvberabad^{Hitch t.i#;;i;;'1;';ninip.oevetofmehtPvt.t-t0.,, Havinsits} Reoistered office^{at ." 'idbiii'h;;;ittL"t<ut<atpaitv' Hvderabad'}

¶39

?,iriEE:":itr'##"i+HilE;i%Ti:"':rt?:it,::'.1llLt*"i?:l , a*y et r.8tr^{&uffi:13:#:,1(.PUC)} '10.Two CD CoPies

¶40

1 1^. One^{SPare coPY} MBC

¶41

HIGH^COURT

¶42

DATED:^0210712021

¶43

s-rA rE o
1 \g
4o.\'q<br>zI
co 21 $tts i/
,!
* DESP

ORDER

WP.No.1947 of 2018

(.*)1-

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

Yerrabelli Mamatha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerrabelli Mamatha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. signs Outdoor Advertising Vs The State of Telangana

Visweswarayya Memorial High School, Mahaboobnagar. Vs the State of Ts.,Mun.Admn.,Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Manchikatla Kamalakar,and 9 Vs Govt.of Telangana,Prl.Scy,M.a.D,Hyd,Andanot

M/s. S.V.V. Media Broadcasting Private Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sarva Babu Yadav and Another Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others

D.S.R. Choudary Vs The State of Telangana