Allowed

Ayadapu Prathap Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2022WP/20355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, directing respondents to release power supply to the petitioner's premises subject to terms and conditions, contingent upon furnishing an undertaking to produce an occupancy certificate within the stipulated period.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release power supply to petitioner's premises subject to terms and conditions; petitioner must undertake to produce occupancy certificate within prescribed period.

Ayadapu Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANAAT 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 PETITION NO: 20355 OF²⁰²²

¶6

Between:

¶7

Avadaou Prathap Reddv,^{S/o. Sathi Reddy' Aged about54 yrs, Occ-} Birsindss, RJo. H.No-^{4-47, Choutuppal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principle Secretary,Energy Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The Chairman Cum^{Managing Director, 0/0.Southern Power Distribution} Company Of T.S. Ltd,^{Transco Building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Divisional Engineer,^{Operation, Officeof Southern Power Distribution}

¶13

Company Telangina State Ltd, Saroor Nagar Division, T.S.S.P.D.C.L' Saroor Nagar, Ranga ReddY District.

¶14

The Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation, Vl Floor, Municipal Office} Complex, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad'^{Rep by its Commissioner.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the} nature of.WR|T OF IVANDAIvIUS^{againstthe RespondentsNo.'1 to 4 herein for} their inaction and causing^{inconvenienceto the newly constructed Apartmentover} the open land bearing^{Plot No.36,Admeasuring 487 Sq. yards or its equivalent to} 407-18 Sq. Mtrs in Sy.Nos . 23,^{45 and 28 Part,Ward No. 3, Block No.9, situated} at Mansoorabad Village,^{Saroor Nagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} within the limits of LB Nagar Circle,^{GHMC, as illegal, arbitrary, againstthe} principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the^{respondentNo.3 to} release the^power supply to the^{premisesof the petitioner subject to the} compliance of the terms and^{conditions of supply and on furnishing an undertaking} t

¶17

to^produce the Occupancy Certificate from the respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation within a stipulated period.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 respondent No.3 to release the power supply to the newly constructed Apartment over the land bearing Plot No.36, Admeasuring 487 Sq. yards or its equivalent to 407.18 Sq. Mtrs in Sy.Nos. 23, 45 & 28 Parl, Ward No. 3, Block No.9, situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroor Nagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within the limits of LB Nagar Circle, GHMC, of the Petitioner subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions of supply and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the Occupancy Certificate from the respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation within a stipulated period.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. GOLI VIPLAV REDDY

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No's 2& 3: SRl. R.VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSSPDCL)

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY (SC FOR GHMC)

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.2O355 of 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

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

¶31

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, dated20.O4.2O2O.

¶32

The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and⁴ herein.

¶33

¶34

4\ In view of the above and for the reasons alike in the order dated 26.07.2018, passed in W.P.No.26085 of 2018,^{the present}

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶38

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1l' SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Principle Secretary, Energy Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶43

The Chairman Cum Managing Director, O/O. Southern Power Distribution Company Of T.S. Ltd, Transco Building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶44

The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Office of Southern Power Distributlon Company Telangana State Ltd, Saroor Nagar Division, T.S.S.P.D.C.L, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶45

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Vl FIoor, Municipal Office Complex, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶46

One CC to SRl. GOLI VIPLAV REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

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

¶48

One CC to SRl. R.VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSSPDCL), Advocate [OPUCI

¶49

One CC to SRl. SAIUPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY (SC FOR GHMC), Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

¶51

¶52

Two^CDCoPies. '10. One SPare CoPY. GB

¶53

2610712018^{in W P.No.26085 of 2018)} (Along with Order^CoPYdt =w

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412022

ORDER

WP.No.20355 of 2022

o\1 1HE SI4 14:
k
oa 1-
17 FttY Z0ZZ
C)
-t
*
sPAtc u.E0

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶61

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶62

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAb WRIT PETITI ON No.26O85 of 2018

¶63

ORDER:

¶64

Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Standing Counsel for Telalgana State Southern power Distribution Corporation Limited, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for 4th respondent.

¶65

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 by the order of this Court dt.23.03.2018 in W.P.No.9789 of 2018.

¶66

Therefore for reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of with 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

¶67

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

law. There shall be no order as to costs

¶71

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

¶72

26* JuLy,2018.

¶73

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶74

gra

Ayadapu Prathap Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayadapu Prathap 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Valbaju Srikanth Vs K.Naresh Reddy

Mekala Radhika Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others