Partly allowed

Kondaparthi Prabhakar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/44935/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first order, the High Court directed the Principal District Judge to dispose of an interim injunction application pending in a partition suit within a month. In a separate, subsequent disposition of a writ petition regarding power disconnection, the Court held that since civil liability under the Electricity Act is yet to be adjudicated, it directed the respondents to reconnect the power supp

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of the interim application within one month. In the writ petition, respondents directed to restore power supply subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the asse

Kondaparthi Prabhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 392 OF 2021

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, against not^passing or granting any Order in l.A.No, 358 of 2017 in O.S.No. 143 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, at Nalgonda,^(sth Additional District Judge, Bhongir).

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Madireddy Laxminarsamma, Wo. Muthyam Reddy, D/o. Madireddy Malla Reddy, Aged about. 85^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Mylaram Village, Bommalaramram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

¶11

... Petitione r/Pla intiff

¶12

AND

¶13

MadireddyAnji Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy. Aged about.78^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Mylaram Village, Bommalaramram Mandal. Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

¶14

Madireddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Aged about. 70^years, Occ. Agriculture, Mylaram Village, Bornmalaramram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

¶15

Madireddy Ram Reddy, S/o Dharma ReddyAged about. 65^years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Mylaram Village, Bommalaramram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

¶16

Madireddy Buchi Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about.60^years, Occ. Agriculture. R:/o. Mylaram Village, Bommalaramram Mandal. Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

¶17

Madireddy Padma Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about. 70^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Mylaram Village, Bommalaramram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

¶18

6.^.Smt. Maruri Srilatha, Wo. Rama Lingeshwara Reddy, Aged about.36 years, Occ. House Wife, R:/o. Dichpally Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, TS.

¶19

Smt.Sureddy Padma, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about. 66^years. Occ. House Wife, Rl/o. H.No. 7-125, Ghatkesar Village and Mandal. MedchalMalkajgiri District, TS.

¶20

R,Veeraiah, S/o. Ambaiah, Aged about. 66^years. Occ. Doctor, Rl/o. H.No. 1- 4-60/4, Street No. B, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, TS.

¶21

Sharabu Amaralir,geshwar, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about. 48^years, Occ. Business, H.No 2:-2-163, Azad Road, Bhongir Town and Mandal, YadadriBhongir District, I S.

¶22

10.Smt, Samala Ranradevi, W/o. S.Ravinder Reddy, Aged about. 33^years, Occ House Wife. Fl/o. H.No. 7-210, Shivareddyguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TS.

¶23

'1 1. Smt.Banda Bharethamma, D/o. Sathaiah, Wo. Yadaiah, Aged about. 43 years, Occ. Hous-. wife, Fi"/o. Mailaram, Village, Bommalaramram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir t)istrict, TS,

¶24

Madireddy Mukurrda Reddy, Sio. Ram Reddy, Aged about. 37^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. l/ailaram, Village, Bommalaramram Mandal, YadadriBhongir District, l.S.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS I DEFFND^ATrJ

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶27

Petition under Sr:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Ad lnterim injunction restraining the respondents/defend a nts from alienating the Petition Suit Schedule Property situated in Sy.No. 89 (Acc.13-1 7 gts), Sy.No. 90 (Acc.4-03 gts), Sy.tlo. 118 (Acc.1-27 gts), Sy.No. 119 (Acc.5-09 gts), SyNo. 120(Acc1-28 gts), SyNo. 122 (Acc.13-18 gts), Sy.No. 123 (Acc.14-37 gts), Sy.No. 124 (Acc.1 -22 gts), Sy No.^'126 (Acc.20-18 gts), Sy.No. 127 (Acc.1-33 gts), Sy.No. 128 (Acc.1-'15 gts), Sy.No. 129 (Acc.1-21 gts), Sy.No. 130 (Acc.1-36 gts), Sy.No. 132 (Acc 7-04 gts), Sy.No. 133 (Acc.1-'l 7 gts), Sy.No. 134 (Acc.6-16 gts), and Sy.No. 136 (Acc.s -'18 gts), total admeasuring of Acc.103-19 gts, situated at Mylaram V llage, Bommalaramram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, T.S, in favour any third party, pending disposal of the main C.R.P.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri. S. DINESH

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 & 7 to 12:. Sri. M. RAVINDER REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.: 8 & I - None Appeared

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BTE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶33

C.R.P.No.392 of 2021

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Both the counsel present.

¶36

o This Civil Revision Pelilion is filed seeking direction to the Principol Districi Judge, Nolgondo to consider ond dispose of l.A.No.35B ot 2017 in O.S.No.l 43 of 2017.

¶37

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioner stoted thot the petitioner filed o suit O.S.No.l 43 of 2017 for portition ond seporote possession of ihe suit schedule property. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed l.A.No.35B ot 2017 in O.S.No.l43 of 2017 seeking od-interim injunction. Though the soid opplicotion wos filed in November, 2017, the some hos nol been disposed of till todoy.

¶38

¶39

ln view :f the obove submission, the triol Court is

¶40

directed to cispose of 1.A.No.358 of 2017 in O.S.No.l43 of 2017 withirr o period of one month from the dote of

¶41

receipt of o copy of this order.

¶42

Accordingly, lhe Civil Revision Pelition is disposed of. No costs.

¶43

Pendinl; miscelloneous opplicotions, lf ony, sholl

¶44

stond closecl

¶45

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Prinicipal Didrict Judge, at Nalgonda (V Additional District Judge' Bhongir)

¶50

One CC to Sri. [j. DINESH,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri. l\1. RAVINDER^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

One Spare Copl'

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912022

fl,^*\x
$ts $[ i
6
1$ A
V

¶61

ORDER

¶62

GRP.No.392 of 2021

¶63

DISPOSING THI: CRP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶64

kkv

¶65

[³³⁰² I

¶66

IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDI,RABAD

¶67

(Special Original Jurisdiction) -fHURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SAIIATH

¶69

WRIT PETITION NO: 44935 OF 2022

¶70

llchvecn:

¶71

Kondaparthi l']rabhakar, S/o Venkataiah, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No. I I - 156, Municipal Road, Manche rial. Mancherial District.

¶72

...PETITIONER

¶73

ANT)

¶74

[.^'l'hc State ol Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Encrgy) Department, Sccr-ctariat. Hyderabad.

¶75

I'hc^'[clangana State, Northem Power Distribution Company Ltd., Rep. b1 its (lhairmarr and Managing Director, MANCHERIAL, MANCHERIAL District.

¶76

3.^'l hc Supcrintendent Engineer, Operation, TSNPDCL, Mancherial, Manchcrial D istrict.

¶77

l'he Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, TSNPDCL. Mancherial, Mancherial District.

¶78

5.^'l hc:\ssistan( Account Offrcer, ERO, TSNPDCL, Manchcrial, Manchcrial District.

¶79

Ihe SttO. Vigilance and APTS, APTS Police Station. Adilabad. Adilabad District,

¶80

...til..sPoNDriN't's

¶81

['crition under Article 226 of the Constitution oi India praying that in the circumstanccs statcd in the affidavit filed therewith, the IIigh Court may' be pleascd to issue a rr rit ortler, or direction more particularll' one in thc nalure ol rvrit Mandamus declaring thc lrnpugned notice in Letter No. At)lrioP'\1.\( lII:RI.,[.1[).No.,541,']022 dated^(t0 ll,l02l o1' the 4'h respondent as highll illcgal. arbitr-ar1 and unjust and conscqLrrntl. sct aside the same directing thc rcsp()ndents to rcst()rc the pon'er connecri()ri to thc petitioners Service connection^..'ide S('.No.6i0l 8-,18.1i7:

¶82

IA NO: |^()F 2022

¶83

I)ctition under Section l5l CPC prafing that in the circumstanccs staled in the allidarit lilctl in support ol the petition, thc lligh C()urt mav bc pleascd to direct the rcspondcnts not to disconnect the petitioner's por\cr suppl) pursuant to thc impugned notice in Lcttcr No. ADEiOP/MANCHERIAI./D.NO. i{l'l0ll dated 06/1212022 olthc .1th respo rrdcnt

¶84

Counscl for thc Petitir ner : Sltl. N INDRASENA Ittl'DDY Counscl for the Respo rdent No.I : GP FOR ENERCY^/ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI. ZAKIR ALI DANISH Counscl for thc Respondcnt No.6 : GP FOR HOME Thc Court made the follou,ing:

¶85

¶86

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SARATH

¶87

WRIT PETITION No. t14935 of 2022

¶88

ORDER:

¶89

Petitiorrer is aggrieved by the notice dated 06.72.2022 informing him of the provisional assessment amount levied on petitioner on the allegation of theft of energy, subject to cletermination of civil Iiability under Section 154 of the Electricitv Act, 2003 (Act, 2003), and the criminal liabilitv under Section 135 of the Act, 2003. The amount quantified is Rs.5,22,957 /-.

¶90

Since the issue is yet to be adjudicated under Section 154 of the Act, 2003, no opinion can be expressed at this stage orr the r-lemand made. However, in order to balarrcc the rcspective rlairns, the respondents are directed to proviclc rcconnectiou o[ power supply subject to petitioner depositirrg 50'l; oi the amount assessccl in the impugned letter, ancl p2r,,n11yq1t o[ recorrncctiorr clr.rrges. If petitioner complies n,ith the Court rlircctiorrs .rnci reconnectiott of power supply is prrovir'lecl, rcspotrclents shall not clt'nrarrc{ L',alarrce amourrt till the issue is decitlt'rl unrle'r Sc'ction l5{

¶91

¶92

of the Act, 2()03. Reconnection and continuous supply of

¶93

electricitv dep61pfl5 on cor-npliance of all other requirements.

¶94

According y, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is

¶95

disposed of. Nt' order as to costs

¶96

Miscellanecus applicatiorrs, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶97

Sd/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT RtrGISTRAR

//-IRTIE COPYII

SECTION CER

To,

l. The Principal Sccrcrary^([]nerg) ) I)cpartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶102

The Chairnrcn and \4.rnaging Director, Northem Power Distribution Company Ltd., MANCI II|RIAL. \14 N('t IITRIAL District, Telangana State.

¶103

Thc Supclintendcnt I nsinccr. Opcration. TSNPDCL, Mancherial, Mancherial Distlict.

¶104

4.^'lhc ,\ssistirrrt [)ir i:rt,nirl linsinecr. Opcration, TSNPDL, Mancherial, Mancherial Distnct.

¶105

5.^'l'hc 1\ss;stxnl .\cc()!r t^(llllccr. lrRO. ISNPI)CL, Mancherial, Mancherial District.

¶106

Thc StlO. 'i,rilancc rrrrri ,\P.l'S. Al'-l'S l'olice Station, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 7. One^(l(l {o Sir.l. \ l\ l)lt:\SLN,\ RIrl)DY Advocate [OPUCj 8. Onc' C(l lo SI{l /.\h lli .\l_l I),\NISll Advocate IOPUC]

¶107

l'uo C(ls to^(;l' I^(rtl lr\t:RG' .t{igh C'ourt tbr the State of Telangana. [OUT] 10. l'rro {⁽ s ro GI' Ir(^)R llo\ll] .lligh^('ourr tbr the Srate of Telangana. [OUT] I l.'frro CI)⁽ opics

IIIGII COURT

SK,,I

t)ATllD: l5/1212022

ORDER

1t\ E SIATA:
oo
?g u[g il22
I
7+
:/

¶113

WP.No..l.l9-35 of 2022

¶114

WRII' PEI'ITION IS I)ISPOSED OF WITIIOUT COSTS

Kondaparthi Prabhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondaparthi Prabhakar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amsapuram Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Uttam Chand Jain Vs State of Telangana

Ananthula Mahendar Rao Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Smt.K.Parmeshwari,Mettuguda, Secunderabad Vs the State of Ap., Revenue Dept., Hyderabad and 3 Others

Smt. Singireddy Varalaxmi, Vs The Joint Collector-I

P.V.R.S. Kumar, Secunderabad. Vs the Jt. Collector-Ii, R.R. Dist.