Allowed

Hyder Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Dec 2021WP/5506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, disposed of the petition by directing the electricity distribution corporation to release a service connection within four weeks without costs, subject to pending state-level litigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release individual service connection within four weeks; no order as to costs.

Hyder Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[321e ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: ss06 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kalakuntla Sukanya, W/o K Narsing Rao, aged about 63 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o H.No.8-3-22218'17 110A, Near Ayyappa Play GroundD-35 Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Circle, Tank Bund, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 an appropriate 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 No.733, admeasuring 300 sq yards in sy.Nos.11l14 to 11118, Situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally 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 5th respondent.

¶18

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶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 No.733. admeasuring 300 sq yards in sy.Nos.11l14 to 11118, Situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.B.MANOJ KUMAR

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI.R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI.M.A.K.MUKHEED, SC FOR GHMC

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

PMD,J W.P.No.5506 of 2023

¶25

I ,

¶26

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.55O6 ot 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for respondents No.l to 4 and Mr. M. A. K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing lor respondent No.5. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself

¶30

When the matter is taken up lor hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2716 of 2023.

¶31

The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents herein.

¶32

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the orders referred to above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release individual service connection to

¶33

PMD,JW.P.No.5506 of 2023

¶34

the petitioner's^{propertywithin a periodof four (04) weeks} from the date^{of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the} petitioner fulfilling other^{formalities and conditions stipulated} by TSSPDCL.^{The serviceconnection so given shall be subject} to further directions^{that may be issued by the State of} Telangana or the^{ApexCourt in the litigation pendingbefore} it arising out of the^{order dated 12'09.2012in W'P'No 20407} of 2008 and batch.^{There shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶35

Miscellaneous^{petitionspending,ifany, shall stand}

¶36

closed.

¶37

¶38

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY / ASSTSTANT REGTyRAR /

//TRUE coPY/'

"Ecr.NBFF'.ER

The Chairman - cum - Managing Director, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Circle, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶47

One CC to SRI.B.NIANOJ KUIUAR, Advocate IOPUCI

¶48

One CC to SRI.R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRl.fvl.A.K.IVUKHEED, SC FOR GHMC (OPUC)

¶50

Two CD Copies S.A GJP ,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710212023

ORDER

WP.No.5506 of 2023

slA rc
(
Jr):) 1 [ li,i],t ?iij
, i" r.

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE^W.P

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

o
d,4
lc [) ,>2

Hyder Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyder Khan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mogali Harish Chandra Vs The Commissioner of Police

Raja Dheeraj Kumar Vs The state of telangana

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt. Mahesh Kumar Jaju

Syed Zainulla Abedin Vs The State of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary

Sapasetti Venkata Sainath Vs State of Telangana

Syamala Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana