Disposed

Dr. Saladi Sarath v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC18 Nov 2021WP/28596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition filed for declaring the failure to release power supply illegal and sought direction to supply power disregarding occupancy certificate requirements. Disposal was based on a prior order in W.P. No. 9789 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to respondents to release power supply subject to undertaking for producing occupancy certificate within prescribed period; no cost awarded.

Dr. Saladi Sarath Vs The State of Telangana and 3… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION o.28596 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr. Saladi Sarath, S/o lsrael, aged about 70 years, Occ. Medical Service, Fi/o H.No.4/A, Vengalraonagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶8

...'ET'T'ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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 [\zlanaging Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶12

J. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana Rep., by The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Banjarahills Circle, Banjarahills.

¶13

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund' HYderabad

¶14

...RESP'NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed 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 releasing the power supply to the Petitioners buildings at premises bearing H.No.42lA (Municipal No.8-3-191/46), admeasuring 467.56 sq yards, Situated at Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tl'ppffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Z\O and 3rd Respondents to release the power supply to the Petitioners buildings at premises bearing H.No.42lA (Municipal No.8-3-191/46), admeasuring 467.56 sq yards, Situated at Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. MANOJ KUMAR

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI R. VINOD REDDY,

¶21

S.C. FOR T.S.S.P.D.C.L

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY,

¶23

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'B LESRI JUSTICE T. VINO^DKU MAR PETITI ON No .2a596 oF 2O2L W]R,IT

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard^{counsel tbr the petitioner' LearnedGovernment Pleaderfor} Energy/respondent^No'l '^{Sri R' Vinod Reddy' leamedStanding Counselfor} Telangana^{State Southern Power Distribution CorporationLimited'} appearing^{for respondents2 and 3 and Sri PasamKrishna Reddy'Iearned} Counsel^{appearingfor respondentNb'4'}

¶28

It is stated^{by learned Counsel appearingfor the petitioner as well as} Sri R.^{VinodReddy,Ieamed StandingCounsel appearingfor respondent} Nos.2 and^{3 that the issuein this Writ Petitionis coveredby the orderof this} Court dated^{23-03.2018 in W'P' No'9789 of 2018'}

¶29

Therefore^{tbr reasons alike'this Writ Petition is also disposed of with} a direction^{to the respondentsto releasethe power supply to the premiseso1'} the petitioner^{subject to the complianceof the terms and conditionsand on} fumishing^{an undeftirking to producethe occupancycertificate from the} concerned^{MunicipalCorporationwithina prescribedperiod' and if no such} occupancy^{cerlificateis produced withinsuch period' it is open to the} respondents^{to take appropriate action in accordance with law' There shall} be no^{orderas to costs.}

¶30

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending'if any' shallstandclosed'}

¶31

i35,1+lil?ilsi["Ht[ | //TRUE COPY// VzSECTION^OFFICER

¶32

¶33

to'r. ,n" " Principal serre' i' ig,$ffiu1;,mg;g,,t'm.Ti'J:ffi^#;*

¶34

¶35

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶36

One CC to Sri B. Manoj Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tourl

¶38

One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, S.C. for T.S.S.P.D.C.L. (OPUC)

¶39

One CC to Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, S.C. for GHMC (OPUC)

¶40

Two CD Copies.

¶41

One Spare Copy.

¶42

Along with a Copy of the Order dated 23.03.2018 in W.P.No.9789 of 2018.

T/P

N-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112A21

ORDER

WP.No.28596 of 2021

41;-".-' <br>1
q
o,j 3 0 Nt}, :l:'l

¶50

DISPOSING OF'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \Ui @ \ >\ av\

¶51

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.V'SESHA SAI} WRIT PETITIO^NNo 789 0P 2018

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioner, Sri R Vinod Reddy'} Iearned Standing^{Counselappearing for respondent Nos'1to 3'} and Sri^{Ch.Siddhartha} Sarma, learned^{Standing Counsel} appearing^{for resPondentNo 4}

¶54

When the^{matter is called,it is broughtto the notice of this} Court by the^{learned counsel for the petitioner that in identical} circumstances,^{this Courtdisposedof W'P No'26340 of 2Ol7 by} way of an^{order, dated08'08'2017' and a copy of the sameis} placed on record^{along with the writ petition as a material paper' It} is a fact that^{the said writ petition was disposed of by following the} earlier^{order,dated 13'02'2017' of this Court in W'P'M'P'No'3O57} of 2017^{in W.P.No2608 of 2017' The operative portion of the said} order^{reads as under:}

¶55

"I^^{vleu ol the above' thls WrltPetitlon is also dlsposed}

¶56

of ulth c^{dlrectlontothe respondentsto reledsethe pouer} suPPlg^{to the} Premlses^{o! thePetlttonersubJect tothe} compllance^{bI the terms and conditlonsand on furnlshingdn} u'tdert.rklng^{to Ploduce the occuPdncgcertrlcate Jrom the} concernedMunlclp(lltty/MunlclpalCorpordt|onlulthlnthe prescrlbed^{perlod' and lf nosuchoccuPdncg certtJlcate ls} prod,uced^{wlthln such Perlod' lt ls oPen to the respondents to}

¶57

tdke dpProPrldte^{c.ctlon lnaccordancetDlth ld'tu'The} mlscellaneous Petltlons^{pendtng lnthis Writ Petltlon' V a g'} sh(lL stdnd^{closed"Thereshall be no order cs to costs"'}

¶58

Following^{the above said order and for the reasonsstated} therein,^{this writ petition is also disposed of' with a direction to the} respondentstoreleasethepowersupplytothepremisesofthe

¶59

¶60

petitionCr subject^{to the complianceof the terms and conditions} alld^on fur:Tishing^{an undertaking toproduce the occuPancy} certificate^{from theconcerned Municipal Corporationwithin a} prescribed^{period, and if no such occupancycertificate is Produced} respondents^totake within^such Period,^{it isoPen tothe} appropriate^{action in accordance with law.Thereshallbe no order} as to^costs.

¶61

4 Officc to^{enclose a copy of the order' dated 08'08 2O17' in} W.P.No.26340^{ol 2Ol7 to this order'}

¶62

if any,^{in this Writ Petition}

¶63

1. MiscellaneousPetitionspending' shall stand^closed'

¶64

JUSTICE^{A.V.SES HA SAI}

¶65

Date^{: 23.03.2018} AM I)

Dr. Saladi Sarath v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Saladi Sarath v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Komarapu Tirupathi Rao Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 4 others

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

Abdul Waseem Vs The State of Telangana

Sri R.Prudhvi Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Valiveti Padmavathi Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

T. Sudhakara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others