writ Appeal under clause 15 of^{the Letters PatentPreferredAgainst order Dated} 08-08-2023 made in^{l.A.No.2 of 2023 in WP No 15257of 2023 on the file of the High} Co u rt.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Peechara Hanumantha^{Rao, S/o Late RamaRaoaged about 62 years, Occ} Agriculture R/o mallareddypet^{Village, Gambiraopet Mandal, Rajanna Srcilla} District

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Co-operative Electric^{SupplySociety(C-ESS),-Sircilla, Sircillato Siddipet} noa,i, bubash nagar,^{RdjinhaSircilla, Telarigana, 505301 Represented by} the Managing Director.

¶13

DivisionaiEx"ecutive^Engineer, ,^{CESS Office , Sircilla to Siddipet Road'} Subash nagar, Rajanna^{Sircilla, Telangana - 505301.}

¶14

ihe Assistint Exetutive^{Engineer, Co:operativeElectric Supply Society} (CESS) Gambiraopet Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District 505304'

¶15

+. Feecnlri Prasharit^{Rao, S/o Jay5 PrakashRao, Aged about 50 years,Occ'} . griineli, Rl/o Flat No.'102, Alwa-l Hills, Sri Balaji Residency, Trimulgerl' Alwal, Hyderabad. 500 009.

¶16

S. f6---fneNSCO, ,^{Representedby Chairman, VidyutSoudha, Khairathabad,} Hyderabad^- 500 004.

¶17

...REspoNDENTs

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 pleasedto} direct the respondents^{not to disconnect power supply to the petitioners service} connection bearing^{No. 3030400588, as well as power supply made videMemo} dt.03.01-2023 located^{in Sy.No.491} ,^{extent of Ac.4-39 gts Situated at}

¶20

tVallareddypet Village, Gambiraopet lvla nda l, Rajanna Sircilla D jstrict pending disposal of writ appeal

¶21

Counsel for the Appelant: SRt VANAM VTSHWANATHAM

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI B. ARJUN, COUNSEL FOR SRI CH. KOTESWARA RAO

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.4: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No. 5:-SRl R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

ttl

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JTISTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶29

THE HON'BLI' SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶30

WRIT APPEAL No.875 of 2O23

¶31

TIUDGIIEI_I:^{per ttk,} iio btc^{the (:hL(,t} Justtcc Alok Ara.thel

¶32

Mr. Vanam Vishwanatham, learned counsel for the

¶33

appellant

¶34

Mr. B.frrjur-r, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch.Koteswarii Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3

¶35

Mr. l'. Bala Mohan Re ddy, learned cour.r sel for. le:;ponde rrt No.4

¶36

Mr'. R.Viuod Reddy, Iearncd counsel for :espondent

¶37

No.5

¶38

With the consent of the parties, the matter is hearrl finally.

¶39

This intrar court appeal has been filed ag;ainst the r-'rder dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Singie Judge in I.A.No.2 ol 2023 in W.P.|Jo.1525'7 t:f 2023 bv rvhich tlre

¶40

¶41

,tTE .b,

¶42

o11 interim order grantcd in lavorrr of the^appellant 16.06.2023 has been^vacated

¶43

Facts giving rise to filing of this a1;peal briefly^stated are that the appellant /'"i,rit^{petitionerfilecl} thc "r'rit^petitiot-r seeking a direction to resporrdents No.1 to 3^and rcspondent No.5 in the ',vlit petition nct to disconnect^the po\4,er supply to the appellant's sc;'vice ccnnection. Learned Single Judgc by at1 interim order^dateci 16 .06 .2023 directed the official respondents not to disconnect the electricity supplJr to thc appellant's;^service connection located in Sr-rrvey No.49 1 mez:suring Acs.4.39 guntas situated at Mallareddypet Village, Garlrbiraopet Mandal, Raj anna Sircilla District.

¶44

The private respondent in the writ petition filed an application seeking vacation of the aforesaid irtterim order. The learned Single Judge thereupon after hearing the parties, by an order dated 08.08.2O23, has vacated the ad interim order. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant had furnished an undertaking that in case of any objection, the authoritres can disconnect the electricity

¶45

¶46

¶47

supply. In the aforesaid lactual background, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appe alt submitted that the appellart has right to ciaim electricity connection, irrespective of the fact that whether or not appellant has title in respect of the property in question.

¶49

On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the appellant has obtained electricity conllection by playing fraud and therefore he cannot be allowed to take the benefit of electricity conn ection.

¶50

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have pemsed the record.

¶51

Right to electricity is a part of right ro life which in turn is guaranteed under Article 2l of the Constitution of lndia. The appellant is admittedly in possession of the subject property orr which borewell is situated. Therefore, he is entitled to the electricity connection. Mere grant of electrici$, connection has no bearing on the question oI

¶52

¶53

¶54

titlr: in rcspect of the^{propcrty which, inany case, is} pencling adjudrcation in a suit. The^{learncdSir-igle Judge} ought to have appreciated that in case^the interim^{order is} vacated, the appellalt shal1 suffer irreparable^prejudiceas rt u'ill cause damage to his stancling crops. Therefore,^t[-re lczuned Single Judge, in the peculiar facts of the^case, ought not to have vacated the ad inteim^order.

¶55

I 0. I?or the zr.forementioned reasons, the impugned^order clatcd 08.08.2023 passcd by the learned Single Judge is set asicle. The official respondents arc restrained from ln disr;onnccting the electricity supply to the^property questron during the pendency of the writ petition. It is made cleal that the observations made in this order have been onl1, made fcr the purpose of deciding this rvrit appeal and shall have no bearing ou the writ petition which is pending before the learned Single Judgc for adjudication. All the contentions are kept open which can be raised by learned counsel for the parties

¶56

1 1. Writ appeal is accordingly lllowed

¶57

)

¶58

¶59

Miscellaneous applications^{pending, ifany, shall}

¶60

stand closed. However,^{there shall be no order as to costs}

¶61

SD/. K. SRINIVAS RAO JoI[r-REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/ t

¶62

ro,

¶63

sECTldK oFF|CER

¶64

'1 . The lt/anaging Director, Co__operative Electric Supply Society (CESS ). _ Sircilta, sirciila to Siddipet no'ao, Sroairi nlfui, nrlunn, siiciila, Terrngana,

¶65

The Divisional Executive .Engineer, , CESS Office , Sircilla to Siddioet Road. ^^{!.ubaphnagar,Rajanna Sirciita, fetin-qa;,_"s'Oigor} J. the Assistant Executive Engineer, , Cd_operatG Electric Supply Societv ( C E S S ) c a m b i ra o p e! r\4 an o 5 r, ni; ah n a s ii JirL*' rj,, tr.i. t 5 0 5 3 0 4.

¶66

o IB3ffol,,,an,^{rS _ TRANSCb,V,diI d;;;hiKh,i;,r;;il.Hyderabad-}

¶67

The Section Officer, Writ posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana

¶68

6 rhe section officer, writ Non Service Section, High court for the state of Telangana

¶69

One CC to Sri Vanam Vishwanatham Advocate tOpUCl

¶70

Q Qne^{CC to Sri Ch Koreswara} nro nOro"ii"lO*FUct 9. One CC to Sri T. Bata Mohan ngqoy,, nO""ili"lOeUCy

¶71

one CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, SC ioi isspodi (O-PUC) 1 1 . Two CD Cooies

MBC GJP .)--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410912023

_/-;:::-- :-:-:.1
_r-- >r,r\ia.- .\
). ').
,..: t,. :<br>(:l:) i'. ;
21 sEP 2m :'' -b l r,r
\ /,(, /

¶76

JUDGMENT

¶77

WA.No.875 ot 2023

¶78

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL

¶79

WITHOUT COSTS

Peechara Hanumantha Rao v. Co-operative Electric Supply Society (Cess)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Peechara Hanumantha Rao v. Co-operative Electric Supply Society (Cess)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawab Tajamufuddin khan@ N.M. Moinuddin Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Chalichimala Mallesha and 2others Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Mohammed Rafiq Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others Vs the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others