Allowed

J. Narsimha Yadav v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Telangana HC31 Dec 2021WP/37358/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records the disposal of three distinct writ petitions concerning the entitlement of power supply to residential premises. The court directed the respondents to receive applications and release service connections within four weeks, subject to further orders in pending litigation. The decision was rendered as a short order citing previous judgments in similar matters.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to receive the application and release service connection within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

J. Narsimha Yadav Vs Telangana State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37358 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

J. Narsimha Yadav, S/o Sri Laxmaiah Yadav, aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, F/o H.No.1-98/91, Sai Nagar, Ayyappa Society Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Telangana State Southern Power Oistribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman-cum-lManagingj Director

¶12

2 The Superintending Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Kukatplly, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 9rgateJ^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Circle,Tank Bund, Rep.} by its Commissioner.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not receiving the application form and not releasing the power supply to the petitioner House Bearing plot Nos.225 and 226, admeasuring 1200 sq yards in Sy.No.7P and 8P, Situated at Guttala Begumpet Village, Mahesharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply without being influenced by the instructions of the Sth respondent.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to receive the application form and release the power supply to the petitioner House Bearing Plot Nos.225 and 226, admeasuring 1200 sq yards in sy.No.7P and 8P, situated at Guttara Begumpet Village, Mahesharam fvlandat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B MANOJ KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Resp,,ndent Nos.¹ to^4: SRI^{R. VINOO REDDY, SC FOR} TSSPDCL

¶22

Counsel for the Resp, 'ndent No. 5:^{SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAIT REDDY, SC FOR} GHMC

¶23

The Court made the fr llowing: ORDER

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶25

WRIT PETITION N o .37358 of 2O2L

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in receiving the application and releasing the power supply to the petitioner,s house constructed in plots No.225 & 226 in Sy.No.s 7p & Bp admeasuring 1200 sq. yards situated at Guttala Begumpet Village, Mahesharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

When the matter is taken up, it is submitted b-v the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarel.y covered by the orders passed by this Court in Wp.No.2640 1 ol 2O2t dt.25. 10.202 I and wP.No.2 1 100 0f 2019 d,t.25,o9.2019.

¶29

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Sampath prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.5, do not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶30

In view of the above, and for reasons alike in the said order, this Writ petition is disposed ol directing the respondents to receive the apphcation ol the petitioner and release service connection to the petitioner within a period ol four (4) weeks from the date ol receipt of a copy of this ordcr, and the same shall be subject to further direction that mav be

¶31

)

¶32

issued by tl Le State of Telangana or the Apex^{Court in the} litigation p :nding before it arising out of the^order dt.I2.O9.2O' 2 in Writ Petition^{No.2O407 of 2008and batch.}

¶33

No costs.

¶34

Conse, uently, miscellaneous petilions^{pcndirg, if an-v.} shall stand^r Iosed

¶35

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY' I

SE(:TION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman-c lm-Managing^{Director,Telangana State Southern Power} Ojstriouiion Corl oration^{t-imitia, Vidyuth Soudha,Somajigucia, l-lyderabad'}

¶40

¶41

The superintenr^{ing Engineer, Telanganastate southernPower Distribution} Corporition Lim ted, Vidyuth^{Soudha, Somajiguda,Hyderabad.}

¶42

The Divisional^{E lgineer,Telangana State Southern Power Distribution} Corporation Lim tdd, Vidyuth^{Soudha, Kukatplly,Hyderabad.}

¶43

The Asst. Divisir nal^{Engineer, TelanganastateSouthern Power Distribution} Corporation Lim ted,^{Ayyappa Society, Madhapur,Hyderabad}

¶44

The Commissio^{ter, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,ilyderabad} Circle, Tank Bur d,.

¶45

One CC to SRI B^{[\4ANOJKUMAR Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRI L^{VINOD REDDY, SC FORTSSPDCL} [OP[JC]

¶47

One CC to SRI^{jAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY' SC FOR GHI/C IOPUC]}

¶48

Two CD Copies

¶49

One spare copy

¶50

I ,o,ono with order copr dated 25.10.2021^{in W,P.No. 26401 of 2021 and dated} I )s.osiots in w.P.No'^{21100 of 2019.)}

NPJ

HIGH COURT

TVK,J

DATED:31 11212021

ORDER

WP.No.37358^('f 2021

1d" SJ
/
c,JJ 0 $ ,tliil ?..122

¶59

DISPOSING OIi THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COS TS.

\ tC\

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T . VINOD KUMAR

¶64

WRIT PETITION No.264O1 OF 2O21

¶65

ORDER:

¶66

This Writ Petition is flled for the lbllorving relief-:

¶67

"... to issue an applopriate Writ, order or direction nrore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and to provide service connections along with electrical metres to the building constructed on Plot bearing No.879, admeasuring 333 Sq. Yards in Sy. No.1 lll4 to l1l18 Part of Sy. No.1 I situated in Sri Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, without being influenced by the instructions of the 5th respondent. . . .."

¶68

When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2l 100 o1'20 19.

¶69

Learned Covernment Pleader appearing for Energy/respondent No.l, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Power Distlibution Conrpany Limited appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.5, do not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶70

In view of the above, for the reasons alike in the said order, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release individual service connection to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the

¶71

same shall be : ubject to f'urther direction that rnay be issur:d by the State of Telang rna or the Apex Court in the litigation pending befbre it arising out o1 the order dated 12.09.2012 in Writ l)etiti,.rn 1.1o.20407 o1'2008 and bat rh. No costs.

¶72

Miscellar eous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed

(T. VINOD KtrMAR, J)

Date: 25.10.20 11.

MRKR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITIO NNo.21100 oF 2019

¶78

ORDER:

¶79

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by action of respondents in not receiving the application and not releasing the power supply to the petitioner,s house at premises bearing plot No.350, admeasuring 417 squa_re yards in Sy.No. IL/14 to ll/1g situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶80

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of WP.No.22849 of 2018, dated O5_O7_2018.

¶81

Heard Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Sri Sampath prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6.

¶82

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the said order, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to receive the application of the petitioner for electric power supply connection by complying all the norms as required by the respondent_Company. As and when such application is made, the respondentCompany is directed to provide individual service connection to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of such application and

¶83

¶84

provision of such power supply connection sha-ll be subject to fu rther direction that may be issued by the State of Teiar .gana or the Supreme Court in the lil-igation pending be ore it arising out of the judgment dated 12-09.2012 in WP.No.20407 of 2OO8 and batch. Pending mis:ellaneous applications if any shal.. stand closed.

¶85

A.RAJASHEKEIT REDDY,J

¶86

25-09-20 \9 Nvl

J. Narsimha Yadav v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Narsimha Yadav v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

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

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Koduri Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Butti Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. K. Ravindranath Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Ch.Sathi Babu Vs State of Telangana