A writ petition challenging an arbitrary memo denied power load was listed for hearing. The petitioner's counsel requested no further orders. The court closed the matter without costs.
The writ petition was closed without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3302 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMEER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 23325 OF 2010
Between:
l\4/s.Jeevaka lndustries Ltd(Sponge lron Division), Agarwal Nasthipur Village, Hatnoora Mandal, Medak District, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Anil.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the memo No.CGM/OPR/R.R ZonelHYD/ADE(.I/85Z10-11, dated 14-07-2010 of the 2nd Respondent, as Highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently, set aside the same
LA. NO: I OF 2010(wP MP. NO: 29844OF 20101
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 direct the respondents to forthwith release the additional load of 200 KVA (CMD) to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D. V. NAGARJUNA BABU
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI.R.VINOD REDDY/SC
The Court made the following: ORDER
,
THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.23325 of 2010
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Cou.sel appeari.g for the petitioner stated that no further orders are necessary in this matter and requested to close the matter.
2 Recorciing the aforementioned submission, this petition is closed.
3 Miscellaneous petition pending, if any, in this Writ petition shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
\
sD/- K. VENKATAH / \sslsrANT RE$STRAR I //TRUE coPY// sEcTtoN #-ncen
To,
'1. One CC to SRt D. V Ntc3B{qNA BABU, Advocate tOpUCl ? 9n"cc to sRt R VtNoD neobi'sC,nii.iljl"ftipucf , cD copies Jrffi GJP
k
HIGH COURT
DATED:1911212022
ORDER
I i)' .. !
,'.i,1
s .<br>o t;
l.i, + (,j=
-T
a
(E
!>Y*:y
WP.No.23325 of 2010
cLostNG THE WRIT PETITIOTWITHOUT COSTS
,t
%
G)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition under Article 226 requires any direction by the High Court regarding the impugned memo.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jeevaka Industries Ltd (Sponge Iron Division)
The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
