Disposed

Kanchi Seetha Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022WP/13719/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a resident seeking a writ of mandamus to compel power distribution and municipal authorities to release electricity supply to his premises. The Court found no issue at the admission stage, directed the petitioner to file a new application fresh to the relevant authorities, and closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh application for power supply; Writ petition disposed without costs.

Kanchi Seetha Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original^J urisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THE SEVENTEENTHDAY OF IVARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEA.ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:13^{719 0F 2022}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kanchi Seetha^{Ram Reddy, S/o' Kanchi Venkateshwarlu, Age 441ears,.occ.} rilli"nJri, nyo^{prot NoIZAl',ljiNoaor,Sri Sai Rain Residency. EswarVillas} no-0, Nira*pet'^{Kukatpally, Hyderabad'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Represented by its.Principal,Secretary'Power and} i. 16 v*b-"^p r'fi;^{ni, S e b ret i ri a t B uiI di n} i^{s' At H vde ra b a d'} "

¶13

2 The Southern Power "^{Distribution Company of TelanganaLtd' Represented by} N.aanaging-Direcior,^{b-t-i;0,MintCbmpound'Hvderabad-}

¶14

iii'"cXiii.r" "rm 500063.

¶15

J The Southern^{Power Distribution company of TelanganaLtd,Represented by} ii.'"Oi"i#""rr^f .sin;"i tOpui;xon-;,^{Jeedimetta Divis-ion, Medchal lr.4alkajgiri} District.

¶16

The southern^{Power Distribution company.of TelanganaLtd,Represented by}

¶17

4 iii'"nJr]Jt""i e"gin."iOp"rrtlons^{era{atni NagarSeltion, MedchalIt4alkaigiri} District.

¶18

5 The Nizamoet^{Ir,4unicipal Corporation, Represented by its CommiSSioner,} N iza mpet,^{Ir,4edchal-l\4alkajgiri D istrict.}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderorDirectionpreferablyWritoflr,4andamusdeclaring the action of the^{Respondentsmore specificallyRespondentNo 3 and 4 in} refusing to release^{the power supply vide LI M21648O223dated 17-12-2021 to the} petitioners premises in^{Plot No. 161, in Sy No 173/8' 173t6' 172 and 173/7 of Sri} Balaji Enclave,^{land admeasuringto an extentof 198-00 Sq Yards situatedat} |VlallampetVillageandGramPanchayat'Dundiga|-GandimaisammaMandal, l,4edchal-Malkajgiri^{District' as illegal, arbitrary,without any jurisdiction'contraryto}

¶21

provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and violative of^principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the Respondents No. 2 and 4 to release^{the power supply to} the Petitioners^premises without referring to letter^{Lr. No. NMC/G/03/2020 dated} 14-05-2020^property.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to direct} the Respondents No. 2 to 4lo^{release the power supply to the Petitioners} premises in Plot No. 161, in Sy. No. 17318, 17316, 172 and 17317 of Sri Balaji Enclave, land admeasuring to an extent of 198-00^{Sq. Yards situated at lr/allampet} Village and Gram Panchayat, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma^{lt/landal, tr,4edchal-} Malkajgiri District, without referring to letter Lr. No. NMC/G^{10312020dated 14-} 05-2020, in the interest of^justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURYA BALU MAHENDRA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 5: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.13719 of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for trner$/ appearing for respondent No.1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶33

2l In this rvrit petition, the petilioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.3 and 4, in refusing to release the power supply to the premises of the petitioner bearing PIot Nos. 161 in Sy...No.173 /8, 173/6, 172 and 17317 ol Sri Balaji Dnclave , Iand admeasuring to an extent of 198-00 Sq. Yards situated at Mallampet Village and Gram Panchayat, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkagj giri District.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have refused to release the power supply to the subject premises belonging to the petitioner uide refusal letter No.LTM2 16480223 dated 17.12.2021.

¶35

4l Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, has stated that basing on the letter addressed by respondent No.S uide No.NMC/G/03l2O2O dated i4.05.2020, po"ver supply to the

¶36

¶37

petitioner was refused to be released. He further submits that if thc petitioner makes an application, again, the authorities will receive the same and pass necessary orders thereon, as per law.

¶38

In view of the above made submissions, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application before respondents Nos.3 and 4 seeking releasc of power supply to the subject premises, which shall be received by the authorities and necessa(ry orders be passed thereon, strictly as per law, without reference to the proceedings in No.NMC/ G / 03 I 2O2O datec), 14.O5.2O2O of respondent No.S, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/.T.SRINIV ASSISTAN^{T REGIST}

¶42

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶43

state^{or r er ans ana}

¶44

and Enersv^Deea

¶45

To, t U:.:{:1ii?B,iii,l3!1?i'-il'sr :ent' i o n^{c o m p a n v} m **lusffi^{ffix:'ffi !: :'?:: 1?3[f't}

¶46

'^Ii? "?jfls:t?I:.y:

¶47

¶48

.:i?"'ffi :li'.',#'I"%T,t?Br$i3['Ji"#S?"i'f ':iJa1?;l'Bljl''"'lcompanv

¶49

^T:i"ffi:L'iil::Hl;il'P,ffi411"s*:Hlifi'*:;I"'J'?1"'j'J'#'6:l"ffmpanvof 6 The Commissioner'^{tttizampetMunicipal Corporation' Nizampet'Medchal-} Malkaigiri^District'

¶50

One CC to SRI SURYA BALU MAHENDRA Advocate IOPUCI

¶51

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

¶52

One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITES [OPUC]

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

Two CD Copies.

¶55

One spare copy.

NPJ./,

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED:1710312022

ORDER

WP.No.13719 of 2022

i
1 li
Y
tv
3 12 A?? ?ifl.z
* *
{}

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶64

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS.

Kanchi Seetha Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchi Seetha Ram Reddy 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

M/s Bygging India Limited Vs Ncc Limited

P. Venkateshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri B.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Chitirala Saraswathi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Rakesh K. Patel Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

P. Srinivas Goud Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others