Disposed

M/s. South Matrix Computers Private Limited, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jun 2023WP/13991/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed mandamus to declare non-supply of electricity illegal and direct supply without occupancy certificate. Court relied on previous order, directed respondents to supply power subject to petitioner producing occupancy certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to release power supply subject to petitioner obtaining and producing the occupancy certificate from the Municipal Corporation.

M/s. South Matrix Computers Private Limited, Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION N O:1399 1 0F 2023

¶8

Between

¶9

M/s...South Matri.x Computers Private Limited,, Rep. by its Managing Director A. Ravikumar S/o A. Narayana, agd about 58 years, Occ- Busines, R/o H.No.1-1287 I 201 2, 2nd Floor, Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of_Telangana, Rep. by ils Principal Secretary. power and Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶13

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶14

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana, Rep., by. The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Banjarahills Circle, Banlarahills.

¶15

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the poWer supply to the Petitioners buildings at premises bearing Plot No.10,H.No.6-3-7881N1O, admeasuring 250 sq yards in Sy.No.185 and 186, Situated at Panjagutta, Khairtabad Village, Hyderabad, as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition unde Siection 151 CPC^praying that in the cir::urrstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the^petition, the^{High Court rna)' be pleasedto} direct the 2nt1 an< 3rd Respondents to release the^povrrer supply to^the Petitioners blrildings at^premises bearing Plot No.10,^{ll.No.6-3-788/N10,} admeasurrng i250^s q yards in Sy.No.1B5 and 186 Situatr:d at^Panjagutta, Khairtabad Village, I ly Jerabad.

¶20

Counsel for the Peti lioner : SRl. B MANOJ KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Res condent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶22

Counsel for the Res condent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRI R VINOO REDI)Y SC) FOR TSSPDCL

¶23

Counsel for the Res rc'ndent No.4 :SRl K SIDDARATH RAO

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.1 399\ of 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, lcarned Governrnerrt Pleader for Energ,', appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Sta.nding Counsel for TSSpDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

'2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus rr_r declare the action ol the respondents in not releasing the polvcr supply to the petitioner's building at premises plot No.l0, H.No.6-37881A/ 1O, admeasuring 25O square yards in Survey Nos.l85 and 186, situared ar Panjagutta, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶31

When the rnatter is taken up lbr hearing, it is subrnirtecl by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Couit in W.P.No.4l259 of ZOZb, aated, tt.1t.2o22. The same is not disputed by learned Government Pleader for Energr appearing for respondent No.l and Sri Rlr-inod Reddy, learned Standitrg Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶32

In view of the above and lbr the reasons alike in the said order, the Writ Petidon is disposed of at the admission stag,e directing the respondenLs to release t.he power suppiy to the sttbjecr_

¶33

¶34

pr( n.lscs ()1 I l(, l)ctjtionL.r subjcc( to petitiont r (jc,rtItll.illg uith rhe ler-r:.rs a.r1 ( ()r r Lti()rs ard or.r rurr-rishi.g an urrdcr,z li ,g to pr.duce tht: occ -.til,:rr ) _..\ ccrl.ificate fir;nr Lhe Mtrni,:ipal Oorpor.atiorr con<:crnerl, r,.'i h in a p|escribed period ar.rd il n,) siu :h occll i)a rrcy ccrt i ftca [( rs , r o,1ucr:d rvithin such prescribed 'lme. Lt. ts ()pen lo the rcsponde tt:l i ) litke ,rppropriate action, 1n a Ccord a..rce rn rth lau,. Thcrc shall lrc tr 6;ds1 as to costs.

¶35

l\1is<:el a rcous petitions, if any, pending in tlri,,, u.r_rt pclttron sl.ta ll stancl clor crl

¶36

SiD/.A.V.S.PRASAD

¶37

ASS S TATE.REGISTRAR

¶38

//TRUE COPY// ( )t)

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

1 and Enersv Deparr ment, s, ate or reranga na, U:,.:i:?:i']I, ;::i;r:?r#;r

¶41

2 The Chairm.:n arrd Manaoing Director, Southern prtwer t )is; tribr.rtion Company 1 The Lld., charrm,n of Tetalg a.d rna, lVranaoing Mint iompound, Drr""tor.'sori^Jr"n Hyderabad. p,wer tris:ribution company ,n" s"up6rintendingi,di""", riii"lariorr), rlanjarahils

¶42

bii"i"lL.j,i?# llll

¶43

To,

¶44

4 5 The Greater H',dt:rabad fr/u31g1O.qf _CoiOoration, Tankbun< t, tlyd erabad. 6 one CC ro r)R . g MANoJ ENERGY KUMAR, ,iisr, A;;";;i;. E"iJi" rdil;,H; ;;i" or reransana at Iy;'",tnf ,3 ;l;o*

¶45

1. Iwo CD (lopiel

¶46

SB GJP / e;

HIGH COURI'

DATED:0710(.12023

ORDER

.-/ ==r:'.-,''-
.,.) .rr. i S,i,' '
a'
/
S,iirri ?iil

¶51

WP.No.13991 of 2023

¶52

DISPOSING^()F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS

¶53

o ?
SLI

M/s. South Matrix Computers Private Limited, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. South Matrix Computers Private Limited, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof.Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Durgam Ramu , Vs The State of Telangna

Development and Welfare Association of the Blind Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

M/s Mws- Brp v Vs The Union of India and 2 Others

Tirumalakonda Nagamani Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (Sccl)

Swathi Baina Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,(Hpc)