Allowed

T.Somanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Apr 2022WP/21723/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the refusal of power supply by respondent authorities instructed by the Nizampet Municipal Corporation. The High Court set aside the rejection order holding that authorities must consider applications on merits without being influenced by other departments' letters and directed applicants to submit a fresh application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection letter was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application for power supply to respondents No. 4 and 5 to be disposed of within four weeks.

T.Somanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYIWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^N o^{:21723OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.somanaravana, S/o T.^{Somaiah,aged about 55 yea} rs, Occ. Employee, R/o H.No. 1 2-1 0-336/1 76, Seethafal^{tr,4andi,Secunderabad'} ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Powerand Energy} Deoartment, Secretariat,^Hyderabad,

¶11

2 s;Ith;ilP;;* oistriorjtioh^{Companv Limited.of Telangana,Rqo by its} Ch;ffi;n ;a^{MJnigingDirector,officeat l,4intCompound, Hvderabad'}

¶12

r) Sirrir',"^p""r oistiinr]tion^{Company Limited,of Telangana, Rep by its} 5 roerntenainq Enqineer^{(operationsiIVtedchalCircle, It'4edchal'}

¶13

4 a;Ith;il i;;;, oiittiortio,i^{companv Limited,of relangana.Rep-bv its} Oiuirionrf Enqrneer^{(Operation),Kukaipally, lr,4edchalCircle, [t/edchal'}

¶14

5 5"rir.r"rn^{poti"t-DisirlortionC6mpany Limited,of Telangana' Rep' by its} Ai.i'iii"t f ngineer^{(Operations), Bachupally,ve!9ft9lCircle,tVledchal'}

¶15

6 Sortf,Jrn'FoVJerOis'tlbution^{Company Limiied, of Telangana,} fep'^{by its} Ai=i.iant Divisional^{Engineer(Opbrations), Miyapur,Ivledchal Circle,} Ir/edchal.

¶16

The Nizampet IMunicipal^{Corporation, Rep.} by its Commissioner,^l,4edchal Malkajgiri District. ,..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof writ} of ltlandamus by declaring^{the action of the Respondents authoritiesmore} parlicularly Respondent No.4 and 5 authorities^{in refusing to release the power} supply vide rejection^{Ietter ReferenceNo. LTIM2264B010B,dated0410212022lo} the^{petitioners premises bearingPlot No.985in block No.65, admeasuring 200sq} yards or 167.2 sq.meters in sy.Nos.167^{Part, 168, 169 Part,176 Part' 177 and} 178 Parl, Lahari Estates,^{Situated at} Bachupally village' Pragath inagar,Quthubu^{lla pur Mandal, RangareddyDistrict on the ground of letter} reference No.NIr/C/G/03i2020^{dated l4tOSl2O2Oissued by the Respondent No 6} (not to release the^power supply for^{illegalconstruction)as illegal, arbitrary,}

¶18

;^{withoutany jurisdiction, contrary to the provisionsof electricity Act 2003and} violative of Article^{'14 of the constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirectthe} Respondents Nos.4^{and 5 authorities herein to release the power supply to the} petitioner property bearing Plot No.9B5^{in block No.65, admeasuring 200 sq yards} or 167.2 Sq .meters^{in Sy.NoS.167 Part, 168, 169 Part, 176 Part, 177 and 178} Part, Lahari Estates,^{Situatedat Bachupallyvillage,Pragathinagar, Quthubullapur} Mandal, Rangareddy District,^{without referring toletterreference} No.NMC/G/03/2020 dated^{1410512020issuedby the 6th Respondent}

¶19

A NO:1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section^{151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} direct the Respondent^{authoritiesmore specificallyrespondents4and 5} authorities herein to^{releasethe power supplyto the petitioners property bearing} Plot No.9B5 in block^{No.65, admeasuring 200 sq yardsot 167 '2 sq 'metersin} sy.Nos.'l67 Part,^{168, 169 Part, 176 Parl, 177 and 178 ?arl, LahariEstates'} Situated at Bachupally^{village, Pragathinagar, Quthubullapurlr,4andal,} Rangareddy District^{without referringto letter reference No.NMC/G/0312020 dared} 14lO5l2O2O issued^by the^{6th Respondentpending disposal of the mainwrit} petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{HARI KISHANKUDIKALA}

¶22

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

¶23

Gounsel for Respondent^{Nos.2 to 6: SRI R. VINOD REDDY,} SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶24

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 7: SRI N. PRAVEENKUMAR,} SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶25

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶26

r/,

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.21723 of 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing for respondent No.1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶31

In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.4 and 5, in refusing to release the power supply to the petitioner's premises bearing Plot No.9B5, in Block No.65, admeasuring 200 sq.yards, in Survey Nos.167 Part, 168, L69 Part, 176 Part, 177 & 778 Part, Lahari Estates, situated at Bachupally Village, Pragathinagar, Quthubullapur^{Mar.rdal,Rangareddy District.}

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tirat the respondent authorities have refused to release the power supply to the subject premises belonging to the petitioner oide relusal letter No.LTM226480108, dated 04.02.2022.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on instructions, has stated that basing on the letter alde No.NMC/C/03/2020 dated 1,4.05.2020, power supply to the premises of the petitioner was refused to^be released. He further submits that if the petitionel makes an application, again, the autholities will receive the same and pass necessary orders thereon, as per law.

¶34

¶35

This court has time and^{again reiteratedthat the authoritiesconcerned} have to consider the^{applicationfor power connectionon its own merits and} should not be in{luenced^{by any letter/communication made by some other} department. The authorities^{cannotsimplvrefuse/reject the application for} pon er connection based^{on the lettersaddressedb,V other departmentHeads.} 6) In view of the above^{macle submissionsand the lal\ iaid dorvn by this} Court, the impugned^{rejection letter is set asideand the petitioner is clirectedto} submit a fresh application^{before respondentsNos.4 and 5 seekingreleaseof} power supply to the^{subjectpr.emises, whichsha1l be received by the authorities} and necessary orders^{be passed thereon, strictlyas per law, withoutreference to} the letter No.NMC/G/03/2020^{dated L4.05.2020, as expeditiously as possible,} preferably, within a period^{of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this} order

¶36

The writ petition is, accordingly,^{allowedThereshali be no orderas to} costs

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any. sl-ra11stand closetl}

¶38

Sd/- M. MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{Powerand Energy Department, State of Telangana} Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶40

i;; c]i;i;;r;ind^{Managing Director.sourhern powerDisrributron company} iirit"a, ot rutrngana,^{ofricd at tvlintCompo^und, Hyderabad'}

¶41

J. in.Erberintendinq Enqineer^{(operations), Southern Power Distribution} C;;;;;t iim,teo."ot^{Tdlansana,MedchalCircle Medchal'}

¶42

ir,J 6,riSionrr Engineer^{(operations), Souil.re_r1 Power Distributioncompany} iirituJ, oii"i"ngina,^{Kukatpally, Medchal Circle, Medchal'}

¶43

E t;; A;;i;ir.t^{EnLrnee|.(operatiohs),5911th.e11Power Distribution Companv}

¶44

i6" ii*ii"O, nri,ii"n1 "i1"ta.g"a biJliioriat na, Baih^Engineei upally,^{(operational), Ir,4ed cha I Circl Southern g, lVedchal'Power Distribution} c,i"..rjr.v ti-riGo,^{ot reta ndana,tr,'tiyapu r, Me<i chal Circle, Medchal'}

¶45

ih" 6onimissioner,^{Nizampet Muni6ipalCorporation, tr/edchal Malkajgiri} District.

¶46

¶47

¶48

I 9n"^{CC to Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala} Advocate IOpUCt 9.- r*o^{ccs to Gp For Energy,} Hign court ror-ti.',"'5i"i"--dtruranoana. totjTr 10. one cc to Sri R. Vinod liciov,"scror rerangin;ti;te bilihffi?J#i' Distribution Corporation Limited (OpUC 11. One CC to Sri N. praveen Kumai, SC icir IVunicipatities(OpUC) 12.Two CD Cooies 1 3. One Spare boov MBC vgt

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED: 2710412022

(
5
05 i,:, .-,r t
.i-
!

¶53

ORDER

¶54

WP.No.21723 of 2022

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

T.Somanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Somanarayana 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

Bollepelly Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Punem Koteswera Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Katta Rajeshwar Rao Vs State of Telangana

Ch. Linga Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary

Karnati Pichi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Narra Babu Rao and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others