Allowed

Mohammed Abdul Raoof v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Telangana HC24 Jan 2023WP/1871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to release power supply to the petitioner's buildings. It held that the issue was already covered by a prior order and directed release of power subject to compliance with terms and conditions, including an undertaking to produce an occupancy certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release power supply subject to compliance with terms and furnishing an undertaking to produce an occupancy certificate.

Mohammed Abdul Raoof Vs The State of Telangana And… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:187 1 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Abdul Raoof, S/o Late Shaik Mahboob, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.16_ I -24 0 1 B 1 2, As h raf na g a r c o I o n x N ew u i i, [p Ji^-fva.-.i" o"a

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State Department, Secreiariat, of Telanoana. Rep. Hyberinaa by its prin_cipal - so-obzZl-- Secretary, power and^-'*'' Energy

¶12

2 Southern Power Distribution Comp-a_ny t]d., of Telangana, 'fifOeraOaO.Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Uirit CompounO,

¶13

J Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telanoana. Reo.. bv The Superintending Engineer (operatibn),' Ban;ira Hrrii clrci", bii'iiiJ riiiiJ

¶14

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

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hign'C;u;;;;;" pleased to is-s.ue an appropriate writ, order or direction more iarticutarty oie'in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Responoenis ln not releasing the power suppry to the petitioners buirdings at premises bearin! iano 1ag9q^s111inO^{738.02 sq yardsof A-schedute and B-Schedure, r-r.No.A_i_6i-8/6,} e_ 2-,61Bl6lK,.covered. by sy.No.129i70, Situated at Road No.rr, aanjrr"-'iirr", S_haikpet Village, Hyderabad, as illegal, null, void, arbitrary "nO^.on"ulrunify direct the respondents to rerease the power suppry without rnsrsiiig io, occupancy certificate;

¶17

IANO:1OF2 023

¶18

Petition under section^'r s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida-vit fited in supp_ort of the petition, Inu nign Court may-Ue ;6;;;1" direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to rerease- the power'srpirv t" ln"

¶19

Petitioners buildinl s at premises bearing Land admeasurirrg 738.02 sq yards of A-Schedule & l-Schedute, H No 8-2-618/6, B-2-61Bt5tK " coveied by Sy.No 129ll0, Sitrated at Road No.11, Banjara Hilts, Slraikpet Village, Hyderabad;

¶20

Counsel for the Pe:itioner: SRl. B MANOJ KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Re;pondent No 1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶22

Counsel for the Re;pondent Nos 2 & 3: SRI R. VINOO REDDy

¶23

Counsel for the Re;pondent No 4: SRI SIDDARTH RAO

¶24

The Court made th( | following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P,MADHAVI DEVI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 1871 of 2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

I I

¶29

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energr appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, l"rr.red Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, appearing for respondents 2 & 3, and Sri Siddarth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4

¶30

It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the issue in this Writ Petition is covered by the order of this Court dated 23.03.2018 in W.P.No.97B9 of 2018.

¶31

Therefore, for reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the power supply to the premises of the petitioner subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate from the concerned Municipal Corporation within a prescribed period, and il no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take

r--i

PMD,J Ur.P No.187t ot 2OZ3 1

¶37

approprlate act on in accordance with law. There shait be no order as to costs.

¶38

4 Miscellant ous petitions, if any, pending in tl is writ petition

¶39

shall a-lso stand closed.

¶40

SIrr-,3.PRAVEEN KUMAR At;:5;1514;',l1REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY// c.,

To,

SI:CTION OFFICER

1 Enersy Departme,,t serretariat, state or I!i,,iJ|ff: ir..:?:13y: !gy;;r,..

¶45

2 The Chairm; n and Manaoing Directo.r, Southern power l)istribution Company Ltd.. of Tetar gana, Minr ioripouna, Fiya;;6;;.' """

¶46

1. The super.inr ?nding Engineer (operation), southern p.wer I-)istribution Company Lk ., of Tetangana, Bahjara Hit6 aircl;,'Banj'ara H,lls.

¶47

4 The Commis ;ioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corp oration, Tankbund, Hyderabad

¶48

One CC to S il. B MANOJ KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to Stil. R. VTNOD REDDy Advocate [OpUC]

¶50

One CC to SIll. STDDARTH RAO Advocate [OpUC]

¶51

Two CCs to C^p FOR ENERGY, High Court for the Statr: of Tr:langana, Hyderabad. [t)UT]

¶52

Two CD Copi,:s

HIGH^COURT

PMD,^J

DATED:^24'0112023

ORDER

WP.No.1811 ot 2023

1 g STAT€
t'
/
t) ,il E fit ?ul
<br>:\ , I
'.!.t,
"
'-l_r:

¶60

WP IS DISI)OSED OF WTHOUT COSTS

Mohammed Abdul Raoof v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Raoof v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

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

M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries Vs State of Telangana

Infosage Systems India Private Limited Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Animisha Muppidi Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam Vs Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy

Naveen Associates Vs The State of Telangana

Msr India Ltd. Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Tsspdcl) and 4 others