Disposed

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

Telangana HC18 Nov 2021WP/28597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought court pronouncing releasing power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate. On hearing, counsel for petitioner and respondents stated issue was covered by a previous order; accordingly petition was disposed of with similar direction to provide undertaking for occupancy certificate.

What did the court decide?

Released power supply to petitioner subject to undertaking to produce occupancy certificate within prescribed period.

T. Sudhakara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

'//'

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVET'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD^KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETtTtoN NO. 28597 0F²⁰²¹

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

T. Sudhakara Reddy,^{S/o Sri T. SitaramiReddy'} aged about⁴⁸ Years,^Occ. eusin;ss. Fl/o.Plot irlo^{1.29/MlG, K.S. Tower, F} -30 1, DharmareddY^ColonY, Phase-ll, HYdernagar,^HYderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

o*?. ,nu State of Telangana, Rep'.by.ils^ P^rincipal Secretary' Power and Energy , 33 3irttr^{B:;S:E|x"',eh['f} fl33?'";"'il,i1^{rer an g a na,Re p' bv its c h ai rma n}

¶11

lill}ffi#tr".+*T',{;it[ffi^{iil:*e,ihff,$'"Jr'1.h--.1"].ll"ll.} T6rnaka, Hyderabad' ...RESP.NDENTS

¶12

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto issueanappropriateWrit'orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrit of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of the Respondentsin not releasingthe power} supply^{to the Petitioners buildings at premises bearing Plot Nos'D-59 and D-60' total} admeasuring^{534 sq yards in Sy No'447'Situated at SimhapuriColony' Bowrampet} Village,DundigalGandimaisammaMandal'Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrictasillegal'null' void, arbitrary^{and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply} without^{insistingfor occupancy certificate'}

¶13

lAEffiffier stances^{stated in the} section^{151 cPc pravingthat in the circum} pleased to^directthe affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court maybe} petitioner building^at 2nd and^{3rd Respondents to releasethe power supplyto the} ng 534^sq Yardsⁱⁿ premises^{bearing Plot Nos'D-s9and D-60' total admeasuri} Village,^Dundigal Sy.No.447,^{Situated atSimhapuri Colony'Bowrampet} Gandimaisamma^{Mandel' Medchal-MalkaigiriDistrict'}

¶14

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI B' MANOJ KUMAR}

¶15

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1:GP FORENERGY}

¶16

Gounser^{for the Respondent Nos'2 & 3: SRr} t'.X]T[o*TeJ.!.I:".".t

¶17

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'4:SRI V' NARASIMHA GOUD'S'C' FOR H'M'D'A'}

¶18

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶19

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶20

wRIT PETITION No. 24597 0F 2o2t

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard counser tbr the petitioner, Learned Government pleader fbr Energy/respondent No. l, Sri R. vinod Reddy, learned Standing counsel fbr 1'elangana state Southern power Distribution Corporation Limited, appearing fbr respondents 2 and 3 and Sri V. Narasimha Goud. learnecr Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶23

It is stated by leamed Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos'2 and 3 that the issue in this writ petition is covered by the order of this Court dated 23.03.2018 in W.p. No.97g9 of 201g.

¶24

Therefore for reasons alike, this writ petition is arso disposed of with a direction to the respondents to rerease the power suppry to the premises or the petitioner subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions and on fumishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate from the concerned Municipar corporation within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy cenificate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. There sharl be no order as to costs.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶26

To,

¶27

SD/-T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶28

¶29

The Principal Secreta^ ^^{gecre^tariat, Hyderabad/rioEowerand Energy Department, state of relangana,} Power Distribution companv "^{+P:i'f{Tr'J,f#^#?tXtfr%.?"1,i'1,";a"?i;;xirn} : i&: ii?:il;;::'1,'^f*?il^{:itlS[:,.fi:?:[j1"e rn powe r Di st ri b ution c o m pa ny} " iffi":."#[rssroner,^Hyderabad Metropolitan Deveropment Authority, Tarnaka,

¶30

¶31

or reransana^{at Hvderabad} 3. ?,13 33ii"%8,$?."1[f;inU"'fB]?IJttJ* l,'fi:h^{n BIt $ : xll31'*?x'8} "',a:^{i3: 1} "?^i: i J3 [ Bi ) 9. Two^{CD CoPies'} 10.One^{Spare uoPY'} "'o "

¶32

10.One^{Spare uoPY'} "'o " Along^{with a Copy of the Order dated 23'03'2018 in W'P'No'9789of 2018'}

MP TR

, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 8t11t2021

ORDER

WP.No.2859t at 2021

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶40

iHE S 14
Y
oc
25 tw20,l1
t)
*
t( 7^>1

¶41

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI} WRIT PETITI ON^{No.9789 0F 2018}

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioner' Sri R VinodReddy'} learnecl^{Standing Counsel appearing for respondentNos lto 3'} and Sri^{Ch.SiddharthaSarma' learned StandingCounsel} appearing^{for resPondent No 4'}

¶45

When^{the matter is called'it is brought to the notice of this} Court^{by the learnedcounseLfor the petitionerthat in identical} circumstances,^{this Court disposed of W P'No'26340of 2017by} way of^{an order'datedO8'OB'2017' and a copy of the sameis} piaced^{on recordalongwith the writ petition as a material paper' it} is a^{fact that the said writ petitionwas disposed of by foilowing the} eariier^{order,dated 13'02'2017'of this Court in W P'M'P No'3057} of 2Ol7in^{W'P No'260 I of 2Ol7 'The operativeportionof the said} order^{reads as under:}

¶46

"In^{uiewoJ the aboue'this Wrlt Petitlo^is also disposed} oJ wlth^{adirecttoi'n tothe resPo^dentsto releose the Pouer} supPlg^to 'nt^{o)t^""" oI the} anlit^{cond'itions Petitloner a d on subiect turnishi"s tothed^} compttance undertdking^* 'o '";;;;:;:^{p)odu"t the occuPoncg certiJicdtelrom the} concerned^{Uun|"1:-ipo'tUWtt'trrniciPrllCorPordtio^ lu,ithin the} prescrlbetl otn'a''' '^i^{i/no suchocc::oincccertificatels} ptnod'^{lt isoPen to t:ne resPo^dents} The^to produced^{tttnt^ l"n} tdke^{dpproprl"l'-- on'*n lnaccordo-nce" with ldw'} Petitlo^' v^any' mlscelld^eous^{olrrir^"-,."olng inthls} -wnt shrrll^{be no order as to costs"'} shall^{stand c:'"")''..} ''nJ"

¶47

Following^{the abovesaid order and for the reasonsstated} therein,^{this writ petition is also disposed of' with a direction to the} respondents^{to releasethe power suppiyto the premises of the}

¶48

¶49

petitioner subject^{to the compiianceof the termsand condidons} and on^{furnishingan undertakingto produce the occupancy} certificate from^the concerned^{Municipal Corporationwithin a} prescribed period,^{and if no such occupancycertificate is produced} within such period, it^{isopen to the respondents totake} appropriate action^{in accordance with law' Thereshall be no order} as to costs.

¶50

Office to enclose a copy of^{the order, dated 08.08.2017, in} W.P.No.26340 ol 2Ol7 to this order.

¶51

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in^{this Writ Petition} shall stand closed.

¶52

JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶53

Date : 23.03.2018 AMD

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sudhakara Reddy 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

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

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