Disposed

Madiraju Ram Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022WP/12566/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging refusal to grant power supply, the High Court directed the petitioners to submit a fresh application within four weeks without reference to a prior impugned letter, thus disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh application for power supply within four weeks; writ disposed without costs.

Madiraju Ram Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO:12 566 0F 2022

¶8

Madiraj! Ram Koteswar Rao, S/o Sri lvl. Syam Sundar Rao, aged about 59 years, Occ- Employee, R:/o H.No.9-9-3, Raniatayam Street, Xnjrimi;.--'^-"

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telanoana. Rep. by, its,principal Secretary, power and Energy Department, Secrelariat, tty'Oerj UaO

¶12

Southern Power Distributioh Compan-y Limited of Telangana. Rep. by its Chairman and [\rlanaoino Director, Office ii frrfrniComio"unO, f_fVOLra6aO

¶13

S Southern upe ri nte nd^power i ng Eng Distiibrition ineer loperations com'pinv ), l,,r"Jcr.,i iirltuJ iCirciJ.'M;;;h;;" "r-r"il"qana. ReD. bv ", irs"" 4. sournern^power Distribution Company Limited of Telangana, Rep. bv its t Southern Divisionat Engineer Power Distritiuilon (operarion), xuraipJrry. C6inpiny-Lrniii"lj veo.i,iicil"i"l'rr,l"jcr[i.""oriSLrgana, Rep. by its Assistant Engineer (operations), bact upiriv. v"ocia"t iircte, IVdddr'ai.-

¶14

Southern Power Distribution Company Limiied of Teiingana, nep by iis Assistant Divisionat Engineer (Opbrations), Hll,Vipri irfdOcnjl CiiCfe,,^'" Ir,4ed cha l

¶15

7 The Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Medchal N/alkajgiri District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondents authorities more particularly Respondent No.4 and s authorities in refusing to rerease the power supply vide rejection retter Reference No. LTIr/222360052, daled 2610212022 to the petitioner's premises bearing part and parcer of prot No.50, admeasuring 266 66 sq yards rn sy.Nos.31B/A and 318/8, situated at Bachupaily Virage and Gram Panchayat, Quthbu|apur lvlandar, Ranga Reddy District, now, t\zledcharMalkajgiri District, on the ground of retter reference No.NMC/G/03 r2o2o dated 1410512020 issued by the Respondent No.6 (not to release the power supply for

¶18

illegal construction) as illegal,^{arbitrary,without any jurisdiction, contraryto the} provisions of electricity Act 2003 and^{violative of Article '14 of the Constitution of} lndia and consequently^{direct the Respondents No.4 and 5 authorities herein to} release the^power supply^{to the petitioner propertybearing Part and Parcel of} Plot No.50, admeasuring^{266.66sq yards in Sy.Nos.3',1B/A and 318/8,Situated} at Bachupally Village^{and Gram Panchayat, Quthbullapurtlrlandal,Ranga Reddy} District, now, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District, withoutreferringto letterreference} No.N|VC/G/03/2020^{dated 1410512020 issuedby the 6th Respondent'}

¶19

IAN O:1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} direct the Respondent^{authoritiesmore specificallyrespondents4 and 5} authorities herein^{to release the power supplyto the petitioners property bearing} part and Parcel of Plot No.50, admeasuring 266.66 sq^{yards in Sy.Nos.31B/A} and 318/8, Situated^{at BachupallyVillageand Gram Panchayat, Quthbullapur} lr,4andal, Ranga Reddy^{District, now, Medchal-tr/alkajgiri District withoutreferring} to tetter reference^{No. NMC/G/03/2020dated 1410512020issued by the 6th} Respondent^{pendingdisposal of the main writpetition'}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner : SRl.B. MANOJ KUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1:GP FOR ENERGY} Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos'2 to 6: SRI R' VINOD REDDY, SC FOR} TSSPDCL

¶22

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.7: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,} SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶23

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 125 66 of 2022 ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energr appearing for respondent No. 1, and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Sri N. praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7. With their consent, the present Writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶27

2l In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly respondents 4 & S, in refusing to rclease the pou,er supply to the premises of the petitioner i.e., part and parcel of plot No.50 admeasuring 266.66 sq.vards in Survey Nos.318/A & 319/8, situated at Bachupally Village & Gram Panchayat, euthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, now, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have refused to release the power supply to the subject premises belonging to the petitio ner uide refusal letter No.LTM 222360052 dated 26.02.2022. 4) Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on instructions, has stated that basing on the letter addressed by

¶29

¶30

respondent No.7^{uideLr.No.NMC/Gl03l2o2O dt 14'05'2020'} power supply to the^{petitioner'spremises was refused to be} released.^{He furthersubmitsthat if the petitionermake s an} application,^{again, the authorities will receive the same and} pass necessary orders^{thereon, as per law'}

¶31

In view of the^{above made submissions,the petitioner is} 5) directed to submit^{a fresh applicationbeforerespondentsNos'4} & 5 seeking^{release o[ power supply to the subject premises'} which shall^{be receivedby the authorities and necessary orders} be passed thereon,^{strictly as per law, without referenceto the} proceedings No.NMC/G/O3l2O2O^{dt'14'05'2020 of respondent} No.7, as expeditiously^{as possibie, preferably,within a periodol} four weeks from^{the date of receipt of a copy of this order'}

¶32

Accordingly, the^{Writ Petitionis disposed of'No orderas} to costs.

¶33

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitionspendil-rg' il' anv'}

¶34

shall stand^closed.

¶35

SD/.P.PAOMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

To,

,TRUE COPY'

9--...-SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

The Principal^{Secretary, Powerand EnergyDepartment'State of Telangana'} Secretariai, Hvderabad

¶41

The Chairman ii,iitElj,ii'i"i"is^{and Jn N,4anagrng J, offit"-ut Director' Mint compound', SouthernPower HvderaDistribution Companybad'} J. i# 5;;ili;olng^{Ensine'eiioi"iitiontl' souihern,PowerDistribution} 4. +fl iirlitEisiiirl"si"r, rBili"'-#ifl^{j1rs;iB'rT3,xii:s"1,3{'1"is""1'5ili,'o'''oncompanvkildi'attvrrrteocnat circle'rt/ledchal'} The Assistant^Engineer tuiS'liidtli^{s"uihernPower Distribution Companv} ii'iiGo .,i ilj6gind.^{ei"li'pilivtr"tbocnatcircle'rvledcha l'}

¶42

rhe Companv Assistant^{Limited Divisional of rerangXnJl ttlgi'"?ii; iliyifiur. io"piiliigl't' tlleOcnal Southern Power DistributionCircle'Medchal} 7 The bommission"r,^{n,,u"plii'runi'iiiErio|.poration'rvledchalMalkaigiri} ['\ict rint

¶43

o. une CC to Sri B. Manoj Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl 9. Two CCs to GP for Energy. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 10. One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, SC for TSSpDCL, tOpUCl 11. One CC to Sri N. Praveen Kumar, SC for Municipaiity, tOpUCl 12.Two CD Copies 13. One Spare Copy st't') \il)-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010312022

ORDER

2gMnt

WP.No.12566 ol 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

s)
,\r--
)\ <

Madiraju Ram Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madiraju Ram Koteswar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varanasi Prashanth Vs The State of Telangana

Mudiraj Sangam (Muttarasi) Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Akruthi Builders and Developers Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Kinnera Shyam, Vs The State of Telangana

Damgatla Lakshmanna , Golla Lakshmamma Vs P.Uday kumar

Massimukku Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others