Disposed

A Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Telangana HC24 Nov 2021WP/29973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition seeking to declare the demand for an Occupancy Certificate for power supply illegal. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the power distribution companies to release supply subject to the petitioner's undertaking to produce the certificate within a prescribed period. It is open to respondents to take action if the certificate is not produced.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release power supply on firm undertaking to produce Occupancy Certificate within specified period; otherwise respondents may take action in accordance with law.

A Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana And 3… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 29973 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

A Sampath Reddv S/o A.Narsimha Reddy,^{Aged about 26 years, Occ' Business,R/o} H.No. 4^{-1'19/1/A,-BharathNagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{Representedby its PrincipalSecretary, Department of} Energy, Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶11

Telanoana State Southern^{Power Distribution Company Limited'TS Transco} Buildiig, Somajiguda, HYderabad.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer^{(Opeeration), Telangana State Southern Power} Distribdtion Company Limited,^{Habsiguda Circle, Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{C-orporation, Uppal Circle, RangaReddy} District. Repreiented by^{its DeputyCommissioner.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased} to pass an order, direction^{or writ more particularly one in the natureof writ of} mandamus declaring the^{action of RespondentNos.2 and 3 in insistingthe} petitioner to get OCbUPANCY CERTIFICATE from the Respondent No.4 for^the purpose releaiing^power Supply in respect^{of premises bearing H.No.4 - 107/A on} irtoi Nos.t t and 14, admeasuring^{500sq,ydsor 418 sq.mts in Sy.Nos.77and 78,} situated at swaroop^{Nagar, Uppal Village and Mandal, under GHMC, Ranga Reddy} District as it being illegal,^{arbitrary, unjustifiedand violativeof Article 14 of the} Constitution of lndia ant^{consequentlydirect the Respondent No.3 to releasethe} Power Supply to the^{above saidproperty withoutinsistingfor production of} Occupancy Certificate from^{the Respondent No.4 and pass}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} DIRECT the Respondeni^{tlos.Z and 3 to release power supply to the-} _Petitioners pr"rir"r bearing H.No.4-107/A on^{Plot Nos.11 and 14, admeasuring 500 sq.yds or} +la sq.mts in S'y.Nos.77^{and 78, situatedat Swaroop Nagar,U-ppalVillageand} Mandai, under GHMC,^{Ranga Reddy District withoutinsistingfor production of} Occupancy Certiflcate^{from the Respondent No.4and pass}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRl.P ACHUTHAM REDDY}

¶19

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

¶20

counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 & 3 : SRl.R.vlNoDREDDY, SC for TSSPDCL}

¶21

CounselfortheRespondentNo.4:SRI.SAMPATHPRABHAKARREDDY'SCfor GHMC

¶22

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶23

THII HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶24

WBILEET!UaN_Ns.2pp^{7 3} oF^2o2 t

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

I-leard coun:;el lor the petitioner, Learned Governruent Pleader fbr Iinerrl,iresponclcr.rt No.l, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing CoLrnsel fbr 'felangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited. appearing for resltondents 2 and 3 and Sri Sampath Prabl.rakar Iteddy. learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶27

It is stated by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R. Vinod Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the issue in this Writ Petition is covered bv the order of this Coult dated 23.03.2018 in W.P. No.9789 of 2018

¶28

Thcrefbre frrr reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of with a dilcction to the rcspondents to release the power suppll, to the premises ol. the petitioner subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions and on lirrnishine nn Lrrrclertaking to produce the occupancy certificate tionr the concL'r'ne(i \lunicipal Corporation within a prescribed pcriocl, and il'no such occupancy certillcare is produced within such period, ir is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with taw. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

SD/.V.SUDHA i/TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REG]STRAR \ SECTION OFFICER

¶31

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶32

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, TS Transco Building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶33

The Superintending Engineer (Opeeration), Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Habsiguda Circle, Hyderabad.

¶34

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Uppal Circle, Ranga Reddy District.

¶35

t3*

¶36

One CC to SRl. P ACHUTHAM^{REDDY, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶37

One CC to SRl.^{R VINOD REDDY' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶38

One CC to^{SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶39

B. Two CCs^{to GPfor Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad'} lourl

¶40

Two CD^Copies.

¶41

10.One SPare^CoPY

sab

HIGH COURT

) )

DATED:2411112021

1Y\ E sTa 14:
+
(o
*
,
2 I llov ?!l?1

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.299t3 of 2021

¶51

.DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT} PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

\1.--
o
\r

A Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Sampath 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M.Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana and2 others

M/s. Savitridevi Polyfabrics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Yash Agencies Vs State of Telangana and Another

Symed Labs Limited and another Vs The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and another

M/s Kumkuma Paperpacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation

Dheeraj Reddy Ganesham Vs The State of Telangana