Allowed

Valluru Padmajyothi v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023WP/10793/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition by accepting the petitioner's submission that the issue was covered by previous court orders. The petition challenging TSSPDCL's failure to release power supply was disposed of, directing the authority to grant a service connection within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Response from the Honorable Court to release individual service connection to petitioner's property within four weeks from receipt of order copy, subject to formalities and conditions.

Valluru Padmajyothi Vs Telangana State Southern… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10793 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Valluru Padmajyothi, W/o lr,4adhusudan, aged about 56 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o H.No.10-32-64, Co-operative Colony, Kavali, Nellore District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman-cum-[t/anaging Director.

¶12

2 The Superintending Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Kukatplly, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad Circle, Tank Bund, Rep. by^jts Commissioner.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not receiving the application form and not releasing the power supply to the^petitioner House Bearing Plot No.70, admeasuring 500 sq yards in Sy.No.11/31^(part), Situated at Rest of the area not covered any colony in the block of Khanamet Village,

¶18

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply without being influenced by the instructions of the 5th respondent.

¶19

lA NO:^'f OF 2023

¶20

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 to direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to receive the application form and release the power supply to the petitioner House Bearing Plot No-70, admeasuring 500 sq. yards in Sy.No.11l31 (part), Situated at Rest of the area not covered any colony in the block of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally ltilandal, Ranga Reddy Distrrct.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L. VISHNU PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, S.C. FOR TSSPDCL

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Mr. M.A.K. MUKHEED, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 10793 of 2o23

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not receiving the application form and not releasing the pon,er supp11,- to the petitioner house bearing plot No.7O admeasuring 500 sq.yds. in Sy.Nos.11/31 (part) situated at Rest of area not covered any color-ry in the block of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary and consequentl_. to direct the respondents to release the power supply. q,ithout bcing influcnced by the instructions of the Sth respondent and to p:rss such other order or orders.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr.M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Cor,rnsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.5. With their consent, the rvrit petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is sr-rbr-nitted bv tl-re learned counsel for petitioner that the issute ratsecl in the present writ petition is squarely covered bv the orders pzrssed b1, this Court in W.P.No.22849 of 2OtB dated 05.07.201B,

¶31

PMD,J w.P.No.10793 of 2023 2

¶32

W.P.No.211OO of 2019 dated 25.O9.2019 and W.P. No.7997 of 2O2O dated 11.06.2O2O.

¶33

The above said submission is not disputed by the Iearned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents herein

¶34

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the orders referred to above, the Writ Petition is disposed ol at the admission stage directing the respondents to release individual service connection to the petitioner's property within a pcriod of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordcr, subject to the^petitioner fulfilling other formalities and conditions stipulated by TSSPDCL. The service connection so given shall bc sr-rbject to further directions that may be issued by the State of Telangana or the Apex Court in the litigation pending beforc it arising out of the order dated 12.O9.2012 in W.P.No.204O7 of 2008 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs

¶35

Miscellaneous applications, if an1, pending, shall a,lso stand closed.

¶36

SECTI FFICER

¶37

To, 1 The Chairman-cum-[,4anaging Direclor,^{Telangana State Southern Power Distribution} Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha,^{Somalrguda,Hyderabad.}

¶38

2 The Superintending Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somalrguda,^Hyderabad.

¶39

3 The Divisional Engineer, Telangana Slate Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Kukatplly, Hyderabad.

¶40

4 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Ayyappa Society, lvladhapur, Hyderabad.

¶41

5 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Circle, Tank Bund.

¶42

One CC to SRI L. VISHNU PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI R. VINOD REDDY, S.C. for TSSPDCL [OPUCI

¶43

One CC to lvlr. M.A.K. MUKHEED, S.C. for GHI/C [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies

[TP G.IP N

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010412023

1HF- Si';,7
c
IJ 2 7 APfi 2023
$
i.._ '_- ai-
ORDER

¶48

WP.No.10793 of 2023

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

1<br>)
u.,1
\ >-r
),

Valluru Padmajyothi v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valluru Padmajyothi v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

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

Mrs. Sree Latha Samuel Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

B.Seetha Ratnam, Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Mis. Vijay Roller Flour Mill, Vs Central Power distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

M.Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana and 9 Others

Neha Farheen Vs The State of Telangana

Baganna Ravi Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited