Disposed

Vadla Gnaneshwari v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC8 Apr 2022WP/17737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to grant an electricity connection. Instead of determining illegality, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application for processing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to file a fresh application for electricity service connection within two weeks for processing by the respondents.

Vadla Gnaneshwari Vs The State of Telangana and 3… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17737 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Vadla Gnaneshwari, W/o Vadla Ananth^{Chary,Aged about 57 years, Occ.} House Wife, Rto 2-20, Old Hafeezpet^{Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga} Redd, District

¶8

...PETrroNER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{Principal Secretary, Power and Energy} Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶11

2 Southern Power Distributioh Company^{Ltd. of Telangana, Rep. by its} Chairman and lr,4anaging Director, Mint^{Compound, Hyderabad.}

¶12

J Southern Power Distiibation Company^{Ltd.of Telangana, Rep. by its} Divisional Engineer^{(Operational), Miyapur Division, Hyderabad.}

¶13

4 Southern Power Disiribution Company^{Ltd. of Telangana, Rep. by its Asst.} Divisional Engineer (Operational), Miyapur^{Division, Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents^{in not accepting} the application for electricity connection to the^{petitioner building premises} bearing Plot Nos.46/4 and^{471A, each admeasuring200 sq yards total} admeasuring 400 sq^{yards in Sy.Nos.45to 51, Situated at Maqtha Mahaboobpet} Village, Serilingampally^{Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict as illegal, arbitrary,unjust} andconsequentlydirecttherespondentstoreceivetheapplicationforthe electricity connections^{and release the power supply with twelve meterswithout} any further delaY.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 3rd and 4th Respondents to receive the application and release power supply with twelve meters to the petitioner premises Bearing Plot Nos.46/4 and 4714, each admeasuring 200 sq yards total admeasuring 400 sq yards in Sy.Nos.45 to 51, Situated at IVaqtha Mahaboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B. MANOJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶19

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.17737 of 2 o22

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader lor Energr for respondent No.1 and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for responden ts 2 to 4. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶24

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not providing electrical service connection to the subject premises situated at Maktha Mahaboobpet Village, Scrilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that lhough the petitioner has submitted an application along with necessary documents to the respondents for providing electricity service connection to the subject premises, the respondents are refusing to receive the same. The learned counsel has also stated that in similar circumstances, this Court has passed orders in W.P.No.26977 of 2021, dated 28.10.202 1.

¶26

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner files an application afresh, the same would be processed and necessary orders

¶27

¶28

AAR, .] WP No.17737 ol²⁰²²

¶29

would be passed and the^{same would be intimatedto the} petitioner.

¶30

Recording the aforesaid^{submission,this Writ Petitionis} disposed of with the^{directionto the petitionerto file an} application afresh^{for providing electricityserviceconnection to} the subject^{property within a period of two weeks from the date} of receipt of a^copy of^{this order. On such application being} filed, the respondents^{shallprocess the same and pass} necessary orders thereon in^{accordancewith the prescribed} procedure and communicate^{the sameto the petitioner,withina} period of two weeks thereof. If the^{authorities have any} objection for^{giving the power connection tothe subject} premises, the same shall be^{communicated to the petitioner'}

¶31

The miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any, sha11stand}

¶32

closed. There^{sha11 be no order as to costs'}

¶33

Sd/. K. SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

,TRUE COPY//

SECTI FFICER

The Principal Secretary,^{Powerand EnergyDepartment. State of Telangana,} Secretariat. Hvderabad-500022.

¶38

The Chairmari and Managing^{Director, Southern Power Distribution Company} Ltd. of Telangana, Mint^{Compound, Hyderabad.}

¶39

J. The Divisionil Engineer^{(Operational), Southern Power Distribution Company} Ltd. of Telanqana, Mivapur^{Division, Hyderabad.}

¶40

ihe Asst. DirTisional Endineer^{(Operational), Southern Power Distribution} Comoanv Ltd. of Telanqana, Itrlivapur^{Division, Hyderabad}

¶41

5 one bC io Sri B. Manof Kumar,-Advocate [OPUC] Cr Two CCs to GP for Energy,^{High Court for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶42

7 One'CC to Sri R. Vinod^{Reddy, SC for TSSPDCL} [OPUC] B Two CD Copies o One Spare Copy

s1t.)

A ).

HIGH COURT

AARJ

DATED:0810412022

a)-
o$
t.
o ,25 Apll202 C:
...<br>* aeeFAT

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.17737 of 2022

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WP AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

Vadla Gnaneshwari v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadla Gnaneshwari v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

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

Mohammed Munawar Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Kamala Kumari Vs Panyala Narsimha Goud

Penna Cement Industries Limited Vs State of Telangana and 6 Others

Gareeb Guide (Voluntary Organization) and another Vs Government of Telangana and 2 Others

Sherla Saritha Vs The State of Telangana

N. Dheeraj Vs The State of Telangana