Dismissed

Biradar Devidas v. Sri Sunil Sharma, IAS

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023CC/2444/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the High Court found that questions were raised regarding the correspondence process. After hearing both the petitioner and the respondent, the Court took into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit and observations made in the Court below, and closed the contempt proceedings. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

no order as to costs; contempt case closed

Biradar Devidas Vs Sri Sunil Sharma… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT FryDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND T\ TENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^MTS. }USTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶5

Contempt Case^No .24M^{of 2023}

¶6

Contempt case filed under Sections^{10 to 12 of the ContemPt of Courts} of Act, to punish the^{respondent hereinfor willful,deliberate disobedienceof} the orders of this Court^{dated 06.09.2023passed in W.P.No.23878ot 2023 '}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Biradar Devidas, S/o Ganapat^{Rao,Age 37 \ears, Occ' Business,R/o' H'No'7-} 162, Sri Ram Colony,^{jai Paily Village,Balapur Mandal,Ranga ReddySr'iton"..}

¶9

AND

¶10

Sri Sunil Sharma, IAS,^{SpecialChief secretary,Dept of Energy,} Telangana, Secretariat^{Building, Hyderlbad,Telangana State.}

¶11

Sri G.F.aghuma Reddy,^{Chairman and Managing Director,Telangana} State Sorithern Powei^{Distribution Company Lirnited,6-1-50,Mind} Compound, Hyderabad, Telargana.

¶12

...Respondents.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{Sri Syed Iliyas.}

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents:^{Sri R.VinodReddy (SCfor TSTRANSCO)'}

¶15

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶16

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶17

Con mDt Case 0.2444 OF 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Mr. Syed llliyas, learned counsr:l appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned standing counset for TS TRANSCO/TSSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶20

Complaining violation of the orders of this Court daterd 06.09.2023 passed in Writ petition No.23878 of 2023, this Contempt Case has been filed.

¶21

The relevant portion of the orders of this Court dated 06.09.2023 in W.p.No.23878 of 2023, reads as under:

¶22

"Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents are directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner bearing Registration No.NR1532392Bt4O, dated 08.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, duly communicating the said decision to the petitioner. "

\ : -2-

\a-!wB

The counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2. The learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.4 and 6 of the said counter and contends that the order dated 06.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.23a78 of 2O23 had been complied with. Paras-4 & 6 of the counter,

¶27

read as uirder:

¶28

"4. It is submitted that in compliance of the orders of the Honourable Court, a letter was addressed to the^petitioner to submit the documents and the documents were submitted by the^petitioner on 12.70.2023 and^personal hearing was held on 18.10.2023. During the personal hearing, the petitioner has stated that he was not aware of the pending dues in the same premises, and that he purchased the property from Mohd. Kareemuddin and further stated that it is for the Respondent company to collect the^pending arrears from the erstwhile owner of the property. The respondents by letter dated t3.11.2023 has rejected the application of the^petitioner as there are^pending ari'ears of Rs.20,66,846/- in respect of service connection bearing Sc. No.3402 00602 where the service connection was situated in the same house bearing H. No.2-360/7 / A/ t Gaganpahad, Hyderabad and the said^property is situated in Plot No. 5 in Sy. No.31 and 32, Jalpally Rajendranagar Mandal.

¶29

¶30

\ \

¶31

rt tss ubmitted thatth CD itioners application was considered as per the General Term and co nd itions of su olv and as there were oendino dues in resoect of another service connectaon situated in same premises rc6eaki Itar rd I ds}ail w n 1 1 'n)a. passed reiectino the application of the Detitioner. The Honorable supreme Court in TSSPDCL Vs. Srigdhaa Beverages 2020 [6] SCC 404 and K.C. Nian Vs. State SEB 2023 SCC online 663 has held that the General Terms and conditions of supply are statutory in nature and that the distribution companies have right to reject the application for new service connection until the previous dues in respect of the service connection in the same property are cleared. The delay in passing the orders has occurred as the petitioner did not furnish any written reply and supporting documents in respect of his claim. The respondents being officers of the Public sector undertaking have obtained legal opinion from their law department to protect their financial interest hence, some delay has occurred in passing the speaking orders and the said delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. "

¶32

The proceedings dated 13.11.2013 have been issued to the petitioner and the same is enclosed as material document along with the counter affidavit filed by the .2nd respondent in the present Contempt Case.

¶33

.-,\F#l

¶34

Taking into consideration the averments made in paras-4 & 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and also the proceedings dated 13.11.2023 issued in pursuance to the orders of this Court dated 06.09.2023 passed in W.p.No.23878 of 2023, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the proceedings dated 13.11.2O23 are not in true spirit to the orders of this Court dated 06.O9.2023 passed in W.P.No.23878 of 2023.

¶36

This Court is not expressing any opinion in so far as the merits of the proceedings dated 13.LL.2O23 is concerned. However, it is open for the petitioner to pursue remedies as are available under law. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶38

Contempt Case, shall stand closed.

¶39

Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶40

//TRUE^COP//

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To, 1. Sri Sunil^{Sharma,IAS, Special Chief secretary' DePt of Energy'} ^ i;i;;;", Secretatiat^{Building, Hyderabad'Telangana State'-} , i'it.Rl-tr."^{ii"aJv, cnui"Xun ind Managing Director'Tela1sga} - #; il,?il'" P"*"1biJiu"tion Companvlimited' 6-1-50' Mind Comoound, Hvderabad,^Telangana'

¶43

One bC to Sri^{Syed lliyas,Advocate [OPUCI} . .^^-

¶44

;. o;; cc i" s.i n.'vinoaReaav^{(rc Fo; TSTRANSCo) [oPUC]}

¶45

Two CD Copies

ICK/vIl^g

I i I I I I I .

I I

HIGHCOURT

DATED: 08/12/2023

ORDER

CC.No.2M4of 2023

t 1 e LA
o
{lr r-\ 7
:, .ti-r'
o
{s LU
o
l ,.,t, l' -i'/
l{
-i/

¶54

CLOSING THE CONTEMPTCASE

¶55

i?9
2+
\3

Biradar Devidas v. Sri Sunil Sharma, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biradar Devidas v. Sri Sunil Sharma, IAS

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

Panchaneni Manohar Rao Vs The Union of India

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

B. Rajaiah Vs Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S

Ch. Meenaiah, Vs The Reserve Bank of India

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, Represented by the Secretary

M/s. Vijai Electricals Ltd. Vs State Bank of India