Disposed

V Radha Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Apr 2022WP/19013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a Writ Petition at the admission stage. The Court held that the petitioner, who already has a service connection, should not be forced to produce the official copy of the Civil Court decree to obtain a new connection. The official respondent was directed to verify existing connections and grant necessary services without such insistence.

What did the court decide?

The official respondent is directed to verify if the service connection is already granted and grant a new connection without insisting on the production of the certified copy of the O.S. No.327 of 19

V Radha Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S] TE LANGANA AT HYDE JfJE DOF (Specia I Original ..1 uris-Aiction;

¶2

WEDIF,S^D]\Y, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY IWO ' '

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRI TPETITI ON NO :1901 30F2 022

¶6

Between:

¶7

i?i,fl f fl 5,1'JT;'(ti!%k?S:fl :i:,:?Jifl i?;f"1";1",il,"ji;ln|,";X;?*

¶8

AND

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

'1 The State of reranqana. Represented by its principar secretary, Department ^ of Electricity and power, fs Secretarli,Hri"rrlrl 2. The Director, sortnlin plri"r';ffiff.il. Company of Tetanoana state 'r,/anaging Limited, (A Govt. :l l:9lga1 ulg;ilffi iC"6"ffi &;;;:l _,sfi " IVint^Compound, HyderabaO_SOO OOg, TS.^"i't

¶11

J. ^ rne superintendino Enqineer, operation, southern power Distribution . 9,o,^{p, nv of retan!aniStut"r_imrieol} ijur#;;;;; circre, Hyderabad.

¶12

4 The Assistant Divisionar,Engineer, ope;tion,^'sl"rin"rn power Distribution

¶13

^{9,or!:tt of Telangana Slater_imiteci Srrr"ir,ir"g;r,Hyderabad.}

¶14

5 The Divisionar Engineer (Erectricar), op;r;ii;;, silthern power Distribution Company of Terangana State Limifed fr"y;ih;;;;; circre, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, tne niln'co-u.t ,rv ou pleased t9 119ue an appropriate writ. order or direction prereianty i-w.-it i,i il.," nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the rejection oider vide Lr. No.AAE/OpiSHNR/D.No 1O00r21-22 dated ld.iz.zozz rejecting tne apprications of the petitioners bearing Reg. No.NR90 AZZSS+AIi, dated t t.i.zozZ rppf i"rti"" bearing Reg No.NRgO 622ss4635 dated 1 1 .1 .2022 and apprication bearing Reg. No NR90622554648, dated 11.1 .2022 as iilegar, unreasonabre, arbitrar"y and contrary to law, amounting to misuse of powers and discretion vested in the authority abridging the statutory and constitutional right of the petitioners, as well as infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner Association under Article 19 (t ) (c) gnd 19 (1) (a) of the constitution of rndia without foilowing oue prot"ss or law and thereby being discriminatory of the constitution of lndL, with a further direction to the respondent no.3 to 5 to grant power connections in the name of the Petitioner tn respect of premises No.4-3-187/P1/pa(-B in the interest of lustice.

¶17

No: F 0 stances^stated hat^{in the circum} tition^{Under Sect on151 cPc praying} ion,^thet High^{Court. may} in bepre^Ieased spect^toof connections filed^{in support of the Petit} in directapPlicatibearingthe^affidavit ResPon.NR9062^ons Reg^{bearingdents .No.R} 25546s0622554^No'2 Reg48^.Nodate to^.NR9062255 635 5 to d^{2022grandt'1t 4617,} 1.1 for^{service.2022'} Prem^dated RangareddY^ises and^{'l'1 No'4-3.1 20ta22, t} -18^District, on 7/P1/Part-B^aPPlication beⁱⁿ aring^the Reg.No Hayathnag^{ar tr/landal,} 2andl3 Amangal' SY.No'1 sposal^{of thewritPetition} pending^di interest of iustice

¶18

SRI.R.A'ACHUTHANAND

¶19

Counsel^{for the Petitioners} GP^{FOR ENERGY} Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'1} FOR^TSSPDGL Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'2 to 5 : SRI .R.VINODREDDY'}

¶20

The^{Courtat the stage of admission made the followingORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEKREDDY} WRIT PETIT^{ION No.19013of 2022}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard learned^{counsel appearing on behalf of the} and learned^{GovernmentPleader for Energy} petitioner appearing^{on behalf of the respondentNo 1 and Sri R' Vinod} Reddy,^{learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf ol the} respondent^{Nos.2 to 5. With their consent' the present Writ} Petition^{is being disposed of at the admissionstage itself'}

¶24

Questioning^{the letter clated 14'02'2022 ofthe} Additional^{Assistant Engineer' Operation' TSSPDCL'} Shanthinagar,^{rejecting the applications of the petitioner for} grant of^{power connections in respect of the premises bearing} No.4-3-187lP1/Part-B,^{the petitioner has filed the present Writ} I'etit iort.

¶25

A perusal^{of the document, more specifically' the decree} dated 22.06.1992^{passedby the learned IV AdditionalJudge'}

¶26

L AAR. J W.P.No.l90l3 of 2O22

¶27

City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.327 of 1992, shows that the petitioner, by name, Sri V. Radhakrishna, who is arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit, has been allotted a piot measuring 861 sq.yards in Survey Nos.l2 & 13 situated at Amangal, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Moreover, it is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been earlier granted service connection vlde Service Connection bearing No.112375934. Having regard to the same, insistence of the official copy of the .judgment in O.S.No.327 of 1992 is without any legal basis.

¶28

In view of the above, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondent concerned to veri$z whether the service connection has already been granted to the petitioner in respect of the subject premises and pass appropriate orders granting new service connection or additional service connection in respect of the subject premises in favour of the petitioner, without insisting for production of the copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.321 of 1992.

¶29

¶30

\ARJ W P No 190t3 of2022

¶31

strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of

¶32

receipt ofa copy ofthis order.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

,TRUE COPY'

SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

1 . The Principal Secretary, Department of Electricity and power, TS Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶40

2 ff^{e N4anqSilg Dir,ector, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana} State Llmited, (A Go,.t. of Telangana Undertaking) Corporate btfice O-t-"S0, Ivlint Compound, Hyderabad-500 063, TS.

¶41

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Limited, Hayathnagar Circle, Hyderabad.

¶42

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Limited, Shanthinagar, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Operation, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Limited Hayathnagar, Circle, Hyderabad.

¶44

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

¶45

One CC to SRI.R.A.ACHUTHANAND, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

. One CC to SRI.R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL^(OPUC)

¶47

8I . Two CD Copies

¶48

1 0. One spare copy

S.A\Y

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2^OtO4l2022

ORDER

WP.No.19013^{of 2022}

¶54

,:,,:_
a11 I?]

¶55

DISPOSING^{OF THE W.P}

¶56

AT THE^{STAGE OF ADMISSION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶57

(

V Radha Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Radha Krishna 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

Vattam Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana

Erukula Ellaiah and 109 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Sri Vijayalaxmi Girijana (St) Isuka quarry Labour Contract Mutual Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs Union of India

Animireddy Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Godishala Ravinder

Manda Buchamma Vs The State of Telangana

Damodarachary Vs The State of Telangana