Disposed

M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/35897/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to release power supply to petitioners' premises due to alleged illegal construction. Court disposed of the petition directing petitioners to apply for supply release, excluding consideration of the unauthorized rejection order, within four weeks without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to apply for power supply release within four weeks, pending the disposal of the main writ petition, without reference to the impugned municipal order.

M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINOD KUMAR

¶5

wRtT PET|TION NO. 35897 0F²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions,^{Representedby G. Kamalakara Rao and Avula} Jagadish Yadav

¶8

G. Kamalakara Rao, S/o.^{G. Appa RaoAged about59 years,Occ Business} R/oFlat No. 501 , Lahari Enclave^{Nizampet road, Kukatpally'Hyderabad}

¶9

Avula Jagadish^{Yadav, S/o. Avula Yadaiah Yada-v-fg-edabout 38 years, Occ'} Business-R/o. H,No. 1-21,^{Nizampet Hyderabad-500072}

¶10

K.V. Subba Raju, S/o. Appala^{RajuAged about 60 years,Occ ServiceR/o'} H.No. 1-2-3311lieg, Neai btd^{age'honie, HyderanagirNizampet,Hyderabad-} 5ooo72

¶11

...PETtrtoNERs

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Principal Secretary, Powerand Energy} Department, Secretaliat,^{Hyderabad-5ooo22}

¶14

2 Telangana State Southern^{Power DistributioncompanyLtd., Represented by its} Cnilrfian cum Managing^{Director. Office at MintCompound, Hyderabad'}

¶15

3 Telanoana State Southern Power^{Distribution Company Ltd , Represented by its} Supeiintending Engineer^{Operations medchalOfficeat TirumalgherryX roads,} Gunrock Sub-Station

¶16

4 Telanoana State Southern Power Distribution^{CompanyLtd, Rep by its} Oivisionat Engineer^{(Operations) Kukutpallyoffice Behind lvlanjeeraMall KPHB} Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶17

5 Telanoana state southern Power^{DistributioncompanyLtd,Rep. by its Assistant} Engin6er^(Operations) Office^{at Nizampettr/edchalMalkajgiri District,}

¶18

6 The Nizampet il/unicipal^{corporation,Rep by its commissionerlt/edchal-} N/alkajgiri District

¶19

,..RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue writ, order or^{direction moreparticularlyone in the nature of writ of} lvlandamus, declaring the action of^{the respondent authoritiesmorespeclfically} Respondent No.4 and 5 authority^{in refusingto releasethe power supply to the} Petitioner's^premises bearing^Plot No.38^{and 39, admeasuring328 Sq. yardsor} 274.2 Sq.meters in Sy.^{No. 86/Part situated at Nizampet villageand gram} panchayat, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal^{lvledcha l-lvlalkajgiri District, Telanganaon} the ground that letter reference^{No. NMC/G/0312020dal.ed1410512020issued by the}

¶21

Respondent No.6^{(not to release power supplyfor illegal constructions)as illegal,} arbitrary, without any^{jurisdiction,contraryto provisionsof ElectricityAct 2003 and} violation of Article^'14 of the^{Constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirectthe} Respondent No.4 ands authority^{hereinto releasethe power supply to the petition} property referred above without referring to letter reference^{No. Ntt/C/G/03/2020} daled 1410512020 issued by^{the 6th respondent.}

¶22

lA NO: 1 oF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct} the respondent authorities more Specifically^{respondentNo.4 and5 authorityherein} to release the^power supply to the Petitioners^{propertyPlot No.38 and39,} admeasuring 328 Sq.^yards or 274.2 Sq.meters in^{Sy. No. 86/Part situated at} Nizampet village and^{gram panchayat,} Bachupally^{Mandal,Irlledchal Medchal-} Malkajgiri District, Telangana without referring to^{letter referenceNo. N MC/G/03/2020} dated 1410512020 issued by the 6th respondent^{pending disposalof the main Writ} petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PILLI NAGARAJ

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, S.C. FOR T.S.S.P.D,C,L

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S,C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR IVRIT PE?ITIO N No. 35897 of2021

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsei for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Enerry appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for rcspondent Nos.2 to 5, and Sri N.praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 6h respondent. With their consent, the Writ Pe tition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶32

In 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 petitioners i.e., to the flats constructed in the land admeasuring 328 sq. yards in Plot No.s 38 & 39 in Sy.No.86/Part situated at Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Maikajgiri District.

¶33

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.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, on instructions, has stated that basing on the letter addressed by^the (rth respondent, dt. 14.05.2020, power supply to the petitioners was refused. He lurther submits that if the petitioners^make application, again, the authorities will receive the same^{and pass} necessary orders thereon, as per 1aw.

¶35

In view of the above made submissions, the^{petitionersare} directed to submit appiications before respondent^Nos.4 &⁵ seeking reiease of power supply, which sha11^{be received by the}

¶36

¶37

authorities^{and necessary ordersbe passed thereon' strictlyas per} law,^{without reference to the proceedingsdt' 14'05'2020 oi the} 6th^{respondent,as expeditiously as possible' preferabiy' withina} period^{of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this} order.

¶38

6 AccordingiY,^{the Writ Petitionis disPosedof'No order as to}

¶39

costs.

¶40

¶41

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending' if any' shall}

¶42

stand^closed.

¶43

SD/.K'SAILESHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR (tt' //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To, 1. The Principal Secretary'- P^o^l{e^r and Energy Department' State^{of Telangana'} , :'"lt5l'l"J:Hrdil5a0"0a?'?iA P'I9gl"l^ J:i?:s^'^{na state southernPower} rvrini c"np91i9^Hvderabad'

¶45

Distribution^{companv gtli"6YiitL} 't

¶46

1. The Superintending^{t"sinI;'ibp'"'a!i9-ls' Teflsan6State Southern- Power} Distribution^{company .it'],?loifiJiotrlc" ,t ri,.tiiluG.e,'v x roads Gunrock}

¶47

?H:-t5lJLlnar Ensineer.^{(gPqflPlP)'^I:r:'g11?".stf,,ti","t#!tnfi'J,'tn?Y,g} Distribution^ComPanY

¶48

Distribution^ComPanYLt

¶49

.Y;i"Rst5?'18,,";idfl,:F5iu?d:l#,'fl nft n:i,f ,,,_:g:f ,:::' g:IxirJ,rsipii'ilteaxul:[5v"1,i,;ia"J!.{j

¶50

rwo ccs^{to Gp ,o, ,nJiilin'r1 tH;'i;;t:h; Stlie ot relansanaat Hyderabad.}

¶51

S.?tJ"to^{SriR.VinodReddv's c forT'SSP DC L (oPUc)} 1o.one CC^{to Sri ru. pra'"eriXi'ma-r'EC to' tll'nicipalities (OPUC)}

¶52

1'1 .Two CD^CoPies.

¶53

12.One^SPareCoPY' MP BSr

HIGH COURT

DATED:241'1212021

ORDER

WP.No.35897^{ot 2A21}

¶58

rc
$.., s'lA
{
d zTjrlll?fi22
:)

¶59

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

tl t
lru

M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions 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

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

P.Bharat Bhushan Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited.