Disposed

M/s. Poojitha Estates v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC21 Apr 2022WP/20169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking power supply without an occupancy certificate. The Court remitted the matter, directing supply release contingent upon an undertaking to produce the certificate within a specified period.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release power supply subject to undertaking to produce occupancy certificate within a prescribed period.

M/s. Poojitha Estates Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶5

WRIT PETITto^{N NO: 20169OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

lr,4/s. Poojitha Estates,^Re p by its Partner S. Mohan Rao S/o S.^Nagendram, aged about 56 Years, Occ. Business. R/o Plot No.36, Sunder^Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

2 Southern Power^{DistributionCompany Ltd., of Telangana, Rep by its} Chairman and Managing^{Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad'}

¶12

3 Southern Power Distribution^{Company Ltd.' of Telangana, Rep,, by its} Drvisional Engineer^{(Operation) Kukatpally Division, Medchal.}

¶13

4 Nizampet Municipal Corporation,^{Rep. by its Commissioner, Nizampet,} Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or direction more particularly one in the} nature of writ of Mandamus^{declaring the actionof the Respondentsin not} releasing the^power supply^{to the petitioner buildingsat premises Property bearing} Plot No.72, admeasuring^{266.66sq yards, covered by Sy Nos 264 and 265'} Situated at Bachupally^{village and Grampanchayat, QuthbullapurMandal, Ranga} Reddy District, now, Medchal-tvalkajg^{iri District as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and} consequently direct the^{respondentsto releasethe power supplywithout insisting} for occupancy certificate.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to direct} the 2nd and 3rd Respondents^{to release the power supply to the petitioner building} at premises Property bearing^{Plot No.72, admeasuring266.66 sq yards, covered} by Sy.Nos.264 and 265,^{Situated at Bachupallyvillage and Grampanchayat,} Quthbullapur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, now, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI B. MANOJKUMAR}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1: GP FOR ENERGY}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2 & 3: SRI R. VINOD KUMAR,} SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 4: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,} SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A,ABHISHEK REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2OL69 of 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energr appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶29

2l When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.26085 of 2018, dated 26.O7.2018, and W.P.No.6030 of 2020, dated 2O.O4.2O2O.

¶30

The above said submission is not disputed by the iearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and 4 herein.

¶31

4l In view of the above and for the reasons alike in the order dated 26.O7.2018, passed in W.p.No.26085 of 2018, the present

¶32

Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the power supply to the subject premises of the petitioner, subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate from the Municipal Corporation concerned, within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Further, this order does not preclude the official respondents from rejecting the application made by the petitioner, if it is found that the subject property is a vacant land and no structure is in existence.

¶33

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶35

¶36

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,- ll^'r ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{Powerand EnergyDepartment'State of Telangana} Secretariai,^{HYderabad-500022}

¶37

2.TheChairmanandManagingDirector,southernPowerDistributionCompany Ltd.. of Telangana,^{Mint Compound'HyderaDao'}

¶38

The Divisional^{Engineer (Operation) Southern Power Distribution Company} " Li;'.;ii"i;ns;r: xrkripdttv Division Medchal'

¶39

The Commissioner,Nizampet^{Municipal Corporation, Nizampet, Medchal-} Malka.igiri^District.

¶40

One^{CC to SRI B. MANOJ KUMAR Advocate IOPUC]}

¶41

One CC^{to SRI R, VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL IOPUC]}

¶42

One CC^{to SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES [OPUC]}

¶43

Two CCs^{to GP FOR ENERGY'High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad^. [OUT]

¶44

9, Two^{CD CoPies.}

¶45

One^sparecoPY.

¶46

(Along with the^{copy of order dated 26 07 2018in W P NO 26085 of 201 8)}

NPJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412022

ORDER

0f MAY 2 2

WP.No.20169 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 9ffv-

¶55

¶56

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26O85 of 2O18

¶57

ORDER:

¶58

Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri L.Venkateshr,r'ar Rao, Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for 4th respondent.

¶59

It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R.Vinod Reddy, Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the issue in this Writ Petition is covered bv the order of this Court dt.23.03.2018 in W.P.No.9789 0f 2018.

¶60

Therefore for reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of u'ith a direction to the respondents to release the power supply to the premises of the petitioner subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate from the concerned Municipal Corporation

¶61

¶62

¶63

within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with 1aw. There shall be no order as to costs

¶64

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1I stand dismissed.

¶65

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶66

26th July, 2018. gra

M/s. Poojitha Estates v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Poojitha Estates 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

Animireddy Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Godishala Ravinder

Manda Buchamma Vs The State of Telangana

V Radha Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Kodapa Vaman Rao Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Ayadapu Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Valbaju Srikanth Vs K.Naresh Reddy