Dismissed

Manthapuram Bala Krishna Rao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Nov 2021WP/3891/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of W.P. No. 3891 of 2020 at the stage of admission. The court relied on a prior order by itself in W.P. No. 7785 of 2019, directing respondents not to disconnect power supply as the petitioner had deposited 50% of the assessed amount, pending final adjudication of liability.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents not to disconnect power supply and not to demand balance amount pending decision under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Manthapuram Bala Krishna Rao Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3891 0F 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Manthapuram Bala Krishna Rao, s/o Late M. Bala Veeraiah, aged about 62 years Occupation: Nil, Residing at H.No.12-2-1 214, Muradnagar Asiinalai, HVOeiaUaa SOO 028.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

Slale_of Telangana, represented by Asst. Divisional Engineer, A_C. Guards, TSSPDCL, Lakidikapul Hyderabad500 063,

¶12

S.upenntend ing .E ngineer, Operation and Assessment, Central Zone, TSSpDCL Mint Compound building Hyderabad 500 063.

¶13

'l The Superintending Engineer, Operatjon Central Zone, TSSpDCL Mint Compound building Hyderabad 500 063.

¶14

J[qAl.],^{Engineer, Operation Asifnagar Sec17, city Vil tVehdipatnam Division} TSSPDCL.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 as illegal, improper, arbitrary, un constitutional and against the principles of natural justice, consequently to suspend Disconnection Notice S.No.702 dated 2110112020 of the 4th respondent i.e. Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Asifnagar Sec 17, City Vll Mehdipatnam Division, TSSPDCL.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

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 set aside Disconnection Notice S. No. 702 daled 2110112020 of the 4th respondent i.e. Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Asifnagar Sec 17, City Vll Mehdipatnam Division, TSSPDCI, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SATISH KUMAR VARMA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶20

The Court at the stage of admission the following: ORDER

¶21

THE T] ON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶22

WRIT ON No.3891^{of 2020}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

HeardttelearnedCounselforthepetitionerandSriR. VinodReddy,learnedStandingCounselappearingforthe respondents.^{\ r'ith their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at} the stage^{of ad nission.}

¶25

When th^{3 mater is taken up for hearing' the learned Counsel} for the^{petiti,nerhas submittedthat the issue raised in the} present Writ^{I etition is squarely covered the orderspassed by this} Court in^W No.7785 of^{2Ol9dated 15.04.2019, and W P'} He would lurther^{submit that} No.2884 of 2(20^{dated 13'02 2020'} deposited an^{amount of} as of todal^the Petitioner^has Rs.2,30,000/^{equivalentto 50% of the amount claimed underthe} provisional lssessment^{notice inaddition topaymentof} Rs.14,000/-^{owardsfee for compoundingthe offence'}

¶26

Thealovesaidsubmissionisnotdisputedbythelearned Standing^{Co tnsel appearingfor the respondents'}

¶27

ln vie v^{of the above and for the reasons alike in the order} dated 15.02.2019, Passed^{in W P} No.7785 of^{2019, the} Presenl Writ Petitic a is^{disposedof directing the respondentsnot to} disconnect the^{power supply since thepetitioner has alreadY} in the imPugned^notice deposited^{! 0% of the amountassessed} dated 21.C^{l.2O2O.The respondentsshall not demand balance} amount till^{the issue is decidedunder Section154 of the Electricity}

¶28

Act, 2OO3. The petitioner shall pay the monthly consumption

¶29

charges hereinafter as per the monthly bills.

¶30

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶31

closed. No costs.

¶32

¶33

ASSISTiR/iIJAIS?5EF //TRUE COPY/I A SECTIONVFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

The Asst. Divisional E19_i1_eer, TSSPDCL, A.C. Guards, State of Telangana, Lakidikapul Hyderabad 500 063

¶36

The_ Sup_erintending Engineer Operation and Assessment, Central Zone, TSSPDCL Mint Compound building Hyderabad S00 063

¶37

The Superintending Engineer Opeiation Central Zone, TSSpDCL Mint Compound building Hyderabad 500 063

¶38

1. IlqAl._1,^{Engineer, Operation Asifnagar Sec 17, city Vil MehdipatnamDivision} TSSPDCL

¶39

1. One CC to Sri Satish Kumar Varma. Advocate tOPUCl o. One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, SC FOR TSSPDCL tOpUCl

¶40

(Along with a copy of order in W.P.No.7785 of 2019, dated^{.15.04.2019.)}

¶41

7 Two CD Copies

¶42

B One Spare Copy

CHR

'X',i-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111112)21

ORDER

W.P.No.3891 o'2020

)a ,r.; S ;.'.;-6:
\i
I
2 0 ft!l?0?l
,

¶50

DISPOSING O^: THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAG: OF ADMISSION WITHOUT CO!;TS

¶51

aa,iP

¶52

HONOURABLE SRI .IUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶53

WRIT PETITION NO.7785 0F 2019

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 0g.03.2019 informing him of the provisional assessment amount levied on petitioner on the allegation of theft of energr, subject to determination of civil liability under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act, 2003), and the criminal liability under Section 135 of the Act, 2003. The amount quantified is { g,35,123l-.

¶56

Since the issue is yet to be adjudicated under Section 154 of the Act, 2003, no opinion can be expressed at this stage on the demand made. However, in order to balance the respective claims, the respondents are directed to provide reconnection of power supply subject to petitioner depositing S0% of the amount assessed in the impugned letter, and payment of reconnection charges. If petitioner complies with the Court directions and reconnection of power supply is provided, respondents shall not demand balance amount till the issue is decided under Section 154 of the Act, 2003. Reconnection and continuous supply of electricitlr depends on compliance of a1i other requirements. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. pending miscerlaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶57

JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶58

Date: 15.04.2019 kkm

Manthapuram Bala Krishna Rao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manthapuram Bala Krishna Rao v. State of Telangana

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

Vankudothu Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Billakuri Padma Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Arush Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Modi Builders and Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Shabuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Kotha Sathyam Vs The State of Telangana