Disposed

Koya Sudhakara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/35579/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandatory writ for release of power supply to petitioners' premises withheld due to alleged illegal construction charges. Court disposed of the petition by directing petitioners to submit fresh applications to respondents 4 and 5 for power supply release, ignoring previous proceedings related to illegal structures. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit applications for release of power supply to respondents 4 & 5 within 4 weeks.

Koya Sudhakara Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST t'o";,;i |lE,Pi l5:3)i3,*i^{Ar HYDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY.I-O9RTH DAY OF DECEMBER Two THoUSAND AND rwer,irl o"G.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT P ETITIO N NO.3s 579 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Koya, Sudhakara Rao, Sio. Seshaiah Aged about

¶8

^^{cahorrtnisaii"Jiin?cni.rkurtyprakalam Dirui"l%ISiitdocc. BusinessR/o.} z. smt. Suseeta yeiiu w/o. B. Baigar;Xg;j uiiiji'ss years, occ. Home_maker EiIt;,' iiXl."lri"tiuvrri Nagar. Huda, Miyapur

¶9

ff"rJ'fjrtfi.o?otlui ''uiuo,,i

¶10

3, Yellagari Bhaskar Reddy,. S/o yellangari Anantha Reddy Aged about 39 years, occ^pvt. Emprovee nlo. H.rrrt. u-Eii:i6iai,''iiJi'No. +ze, Rashavenora iorony Near Abhaya Airianeva swa11y rimpi",' 'e".iii;;groa Ameenpur vi,ase and

¶11

.^{mandal SangareddyDlstrict_} SO2Cf,,^{" -'}

¶12

4 rhrrumarasetti Venkata-pavan Kumar, S/o. Thirumarasetti Ramanaiah Aoed about 41 years, occ. evt. rmployJe'nf'."proi' rto^{-iH"e_b6.ii'S'jjh;E;,} Enclave, near ppc patancneiir,^- pategud-;^'utfirg6,, erl,i"pr"i" ,..,i,ii"l Sangareddy District 502032

¶13

5 Mannam Vinod, sio. I/nnam Ramaiah Aged about 31 years, occ. pvt. Emprovee R/o. H.No._2-7A, IVandavavaripatem poiii i"ru'gr"i, ;iltd""cj"rj"rE rIr]i,ilr Prakasam District 523262 Ap

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State .of Telangana,. Rep. by its principal Secretary, power and Energy Department, Secretariat, Hvderabad -500022

¶17

Department, Secretariat, Hvderabad -500022

¶18

1. Telangana Slate Southern^'Power Distribution Companv Ltd., Reoresented bv its Chairman cum IVanaging Director. Office at lVint Compound, HVO'eraOiO.--^-'--

¶19

1. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution ComoanV Ltd.. Reoresented bv its Superintending Engineer Operations medchal Office dt Tirumallherry X ro6ds, Gunrock Sub-Station

¶20

4 Telangana _State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Rep. by its Ptui-.Lolq^{I Engilger (Operations) Kukutpatty office at B€ihind N/anjirera -Mail} KPHB lVedchal lr/alkajgiri District.

¶21

5 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Rep. by its Assistant Engineer (Operations) Office at 33/1 1 KV Sub-station, Bachupally

¶22

6 The Nizampet lilunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commisiioner I,4edchall\ilalkajgiri District

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\Iandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities more specifically Respondent No. 4 and 5 authority in refusing to release the power supply to the Petitioner's premises bearing Plot No. 139 and 139/A admeasuring 400 sq.yds or 334.4 Sq.meters in Sy.No. 28,29 and30 situated at Bachupally village and gram panchayat, Bachupally Mandal [Vedchal IValkajgiri District, Telangana, on the ground of letter dated 04/1 1/2019 issued by the Respondent No.6 (not to release power

¶25

supply^{for illegal constructions) as iltegal' arbitrary' withoutany lurisdiction ' contrary} to^{provisionsof ElectricityAct 2003 and violationof Article '14 of the Constitution of} lndia^{and consequently direct the Respondent No' 4 and5 authority herein to release} the^{power supply to the Petitioner Said property referred above without referringto} letters^{issued by the 6th respondent'}

¶26

IAN O:1^oF2 0²¹

¶27

CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} Petition^{under Section'1 51} petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedTo direct} the affidavit^{filed in support of the} pecifically^{respondentNo' 4 and 5 authorityherein} the respondent^{authorities more s} the Petitioners^{propertyPlot No' 139 and '139/A} to release^the Power^suPPlYto 4 Sq.meters^{in Sy No 28' 29 and 30 situatedat} admeasuring^{400 sq Yds or 334'} Bachupally^{village and grampanchayat'Bachupally MandalMedchal-Malkajgiri} District,^{Telanganawithout referringto letters issued by the 6th respondentpending} disposal^{of the main Writ petition'}

¶28

Counsel for^{the Petitioners:SRI PILLI NAGARAJ}

¶29

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: GP FORENERGY} Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'2 to 5: SRI R' VINOD REDDY'} S.C. FOR^{T.S.S.P,D.C'L}

¶30

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'6:SRI N' PRAVEENKUMAR'} S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶31

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS?ICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 355 79 ol 202L

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Ener$r appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, and Sri N.praveen Kumar, jearned Standing counsel appearing for 6th respondent. with their consent, the writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶35

h-r this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly respondents 4 & 5, in refusing to release the power supply to the premises of the petitior-rers admeasuring 400 sq. yards in plot No.s 139 and 139/& Sy.No.s 28, 29 & 30 situated at Bachupally Village & Grampanchayat, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities have refused to release the power supply to the subject premises belonging to the petitioners uide letter dt.28.O2.2021.

¶37

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, on instructions, has stated that basing on the letter addressed by the refused. He further submits that if the petitioners make application, again, the authorities will receive the same and pass necessary orders thereon, as per law.

¶38

In view of the above made submissions, the petitioners are directed to submit applications before respondent Nos.4 & 5

¶39

seeking^{release of power supply' which shail be received by the} authorities^{and necessary ordersbe passed thereon' strictly as per} 1aw, without^{referenceto the proceedingsdt 14'05'2020 of the} 6e respondent,^{as expeditiouslyas possible, preferably,withina} period of iour^{(04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this} order.

¶40

No order as to 6. Accordingiy, the^{Writ Petition is disposed of'} costs

¶41

7 Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, sha1l}

¶42

stand closed.

¶43

SD/. L. SIVA PARVATHI ASSTSTANI-REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY' LAlt SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

The Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad -500022

¶46

2- The Chairman cum Managing Director, Telanqana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Office at lvlint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Superintending Engineer Operations, Telangani State Southern power Distribution Company Ltd., medchal Office at Tirumalgherry X roads, Gunrock Sub-Station

¶48

The Divisional Engineer (Operations), Telanqana State Southern power D.istribution -Co.TqqI,.y Ltd.. Kukutpally office at-Behind Manjeera Mall KpHB Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶49

The Assistant Engineer (Operations), Telangana State Southern power Distribution Company Ltd., Office al 331 1 1 KV Su6-station. Bachuoallv

¶50

The co_mmissioner, Nizampet IVlunicipal corporation, N/edchal-lvd lkajg iri District Z 9n"^{CC to Sri Pitti Nagaraj, Advocatd} tOpUCl B. Two ccs to GP for Energt, High couri for th<i state of relangana at Hyderabad. touTl

¶51

One CC to Sri R. Vinod Re.gdy, S.C_. For T.S-S.p.D.C.L. (OPUC) 10.One CC to Sri N. Praveen Kuhar, S.C. for Municipalities'(Opui) I 1 . Two CD Copies. 12.One Spare Copy.

HIGH^GOURT

DATED:2411212021

ORDER

WP.No.35579 ot 2021

a
1 Bi: 5lA rAt
(
i) 2 7 JAI! 2n??
.'|'-

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

4
bL

Koya Sudhakara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koya Sudhakara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandam Sarojana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Jally Manjula Vs The State of Telangana

Haigreeva Dsp Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Telangana

M/s. V.R. Infra Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Vutukuru Suresh Kumar Reddy and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others