Dismissed

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023WP/10941/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed non-action by electricity department in considering petitioner's representation for a new service connection. Court directed respondents to consider representation within one month upon petitioner providing details of prior connection and clearing dues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit representation with connection details and dues payment; Respondents to consider within one month and install new meter thereafter.

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad Vs The State of Telangana — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2023)

I^321s I

.l J

{

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

¶6

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,MADHAVI^DEVI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO:^'10941 OF 2023

¶10

Between

¶11

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad, s/o. Mohd. Abdul Khader^{Aged45 years,Occ.} Business, R/o. 12-15-1010, OU Campus Secunderabad

¶12

...'ET,T,ONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana. Represented by^{rts Prrncipal} Secretary,^Electricity Department, Secretari:-rt Hyderabad

¶15

2 Customer Service Centre, TSSPDCL, Central crrcle^{GandhiBhavan,} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

3 The DiviSion'al Engineer, TSSPDCL.^Ir4int Compcund.^Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Engineer, TSSPDCL. Central^{ctrcie. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally,} HYderabad

¶17

.,.RESP.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circurnstances stated tn the affidavit^{filed therewrth,the High Court may be} pleased to issue any writ order or drrection more in^{nature of writ of mandamus} declaring the inaction of the respondents^{2 to 4 hereinrn consideringpetitioners} representation dt.15.03.2023 for releasing^{new service connectionin respectof} petitioners shop under .name and style tM. K lvlotors situated^{in premisesbearing} Plot no.22, H-No. 15-9-502/part^{situated at Mahboob Gunj,Afzalgunj,} Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary^{to law and consequentlydirect the} respondents to forthwith consider^{petitioners representatron dt.15 03 2023 and} release new service connection^{ln respectof petitioners shop} lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^prayrng that^{rn the clrcumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the^{petrtion.the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents 2lo 4^{herern to forthwith considerpetitioners} representation dt.'15.03.2023 and^{release newservlce connectionin respectof} petitioners shop under name and style [/]^{K l\4otors srtuatedln premlses bearing} Plot ao.22. H.No. i 5-9-502i cart^s,tuated at^{L4ahboobGunl,Afzalgunj,} Hyderabad,^pending dtspcsal^{of the abovewrrt oetttron}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{PRAMOD SINGH} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY} Counsel for the Respondents No.2to4:^{SRl. R, VINOD REDDY,SC} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

.I'IIt.] IIO\ )I]I{AI]LI SNI'I".IUSTICE P. N{ADII,\VtDEV, I

¶22

\ RJI'PI:TII'l()N \O.l09,ll OF 2023

¶23

()Rl)ER

¶24

In this Nri i'ct 1lon. tltc I'rclrtioner IS challenging tb e irraction of responclents 2 ri 4 in cunsirlcr-inq thc petitiorrer's rr:prt:sentation dt 15.03.101l ii ri^g sir.rg ntrr clcctlicity scrvice c onncr:Licn tn respect ", of the^pe titiorrcr^'s ;l op Lrndcr Lhc nlrnre and stvle 'Vi.K ![c -or:' sitr.rated in the pr,:ntrsc:, i :ririnq I)ior 51y^rr. ll.No.l5-9-5021pafl at Mahboob Gunj, Atzal!.Lrn . i i. tlcllbacl r: illcqui. arbitlary ani contlary to law and consequently to^(l c-l lltc i-cspL-'rtrie rtts L6 consider his reprr:'enlation and to pass strch rrthcr- .rrclcr ()t' ot(lcls as this Cour.t may deetr 1':t at-rd proper in the circrrnrstunc ..: o l' tlte e lrse

¶25

Thc lcarnect c,runseI tirr thc lrctitioner submitted that he has been operating hi:, busi rcss tiout tlrc ubovc said premisc's lrott a rery long time ancl in ilrc r .rr l()17. tlLrc ro I ilrc accident. liis sho.:r atrd all the surroundinq rho1.,^{,,,.1,'.11'rc} tlre elt:ctr.ic nrctcrs got bLrrnt. dcrvn. It is subrnirte(i tlrirr^..I. li.l \o.ll9 l0l7 clt Ij.05.201'7 is i Ir,o regist:r.ed rcportinq tlrc ::iii: ne iricnl Ir i: suirruitLccl tltat taking advantaqc 01'the said 1l.c uc.. i.i..rr . rltc li'r.ll.rti ltrrs bcc, sccki.rs (:\ictio, ol' the

¶26

W.P.No.10941 ol

¶27

¶28

petitioner lrom the shop and the petitioner has bcen resisting for the same It is subrnittcd that the petitioner submitted a representation on 15.03.2023 to the rospondcnts lbr releasc ol a new service connection to his shop, but the rcspondcnts have lailed to consider the said representation and the resporrdents not rcleasing new service connection is the grievance ol the petitioner.

¶29

Lcarned Standing ('ourrsel for thc respondents submitted that adr-nittedly, thc pctitioner \'as in possession of the subject propefty and has been using pou,cr suppiy and unlcss and until he gives the details of his earlier servicc connection and makcs payment ofthe dues, if any, in respect of his earlier scn'ice conncction, a new electric meter cannot be given to the prernises.

¶30

The learned counscl lirr thc pctitioner agreed to provide the said details and sought a dircction to the respondents to consider his representation lor a nerv connection or fix a new electric meter for the earlier conncction so that tlic 1-rctitioncr can carry on his business

¶31

I{aving regard to thc abovc, this Courl deems it fit and proper to perrnit tl-re petitiorrcr to makc u li'csh lepresentation giving details of thc plel'ious conncctior.r fbr rcstolation o{- thc power supply/new servicc

¶32

!' I'j No i09J i 0i l(tl-r

¶33

¶34

conncctiori^.,li'lli l therc al'c any dues pending ir, r,rspec - ol- such conn.'(.f r on.^{,t,l ,</sup> rc\v(lr conncction ol meter shalt L,e lnst:rl ed subjcct to pil)/nrent r--i a1i tit :s or.r tire prcvious service connecrion. l it,: respondents aric crreclcd ii^,-1,15,16195 thc representation to be nracic br, .he itetrtroirei anci t.r't:,: ilct ion tl .r e on ln accordancc with law altct undc I tcneral lul nr-s and contirtic,ns oi sLrpoly ll,ithin a pcriod of one rnonth ['o I tre date ol' leceitl ot Lire 'tr rr'scntation t}om the petitionel for rest()ration ol'the cx rsLin I rorinci tit nincu,ser'/ice connection}

¶35

i.irir rlr,-. rr rove clirections, the Writ Petition is d srros,:ci oJ \o

¶36

llfdel-.t: r() !i)Si-

¶37

'7. i)rrrcli'rr: rr ;ccilaneous petitions, if any, in this Wr t^)e'. tion :;itaii

¶38

sianci r- it-.se ri

¶39

SO/-V.KAVITHA /rrRUE coPY//^{^tt''J;3,&l::;:::}

¶40

To, ",..,: I .. F^'1, '-.,1 r,Lce^i.jecretary Centre,^{uFlSFlY"?iE3x[5Ti..:::'3:1,,1} TSI Jr.:":Xo".,b'o 2 3 1. j:- i i. ,' i'.f.il"l":'i..SIBSi SllSiLBH3;X,Il1;,;?:)3"^Nampa,,y

¶41

! l'. 1a:.l a . ol Te^{anqarr a at} I,,L: I l.'. r, (- P :OR ENERGY ,High^{Courtforth€rState}

¶42

i ij.jel-ri,.iij Joortr, SINGH^{Advocate-[oPrJCl} :'r,^:, i,i-^r'. -) .,... a i,is.lir.., a ",' l, is', iii.rod nEooY sc loPuc] 't^rj ii-

r"i

HIGH COL'F T

{

:.iN f,

{

.I ,l

DATED:24.1( 412023

ORDER

.
t t ' :,, lillrl

WP.No.10941 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C OSTS

¶54

o
0n __---"-
[r\11

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad 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

Md. Amair Vs Sri.Aravind Kumar, IAS and 6 others

Susheel Kumar Agarwal and another Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company Of Telangana State

Nagisetty Nagendra Rao Vs Shri Giridhar Aramane IAS

D. Chakradhar Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Kavali Veeresham Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Ch.Rajita, Vs The Government of India