Disposed

Jakkula Narasimha Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023WP/20120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a Writ of Mandamus and Section 151 CPC petition where the petitioner challenged the illegal disconnection of his electricity supply and sought its restoration. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representations on a reasonable timeline before taking final action.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3-7 directed to consider petitioner's representations for restoring electricity connection within two weeks.

Jakkula Narasimha Yadav Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE^{FIRST DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETI^{TION NO:20120 oF 2023}

¶7

Between

¶8

Jakkula Narasimha^Yadav, S/o Jakkula Laxmaiah^{Yadav, Aged about50} No 1- 98/91 , Sai^{Nagar, Ayyapp.aSociety Road'} Years,Occ^{Business,R/o. H} Madhapur,^HYderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State^{of Telangana,Represented} .by.Special^{Chief Secretary'Energy} Department,^{TelangdnaState,at Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Southern^{Power Distribution CompqLy of Telangana.Ltd' Representedby} ' ii;'b;#;;; ,nJ-rt,ti*gins Director, At Khairatabad' Hvderabad'

¶13

The Superintendent^{Engineer,TSSPDCL, at Khairatabad' Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Executive^{Engineer, TSSPDCL, at Sanathnagar' Hyderabad'}

¶15

The Deputy^{Engineer, TSSPDCL' at Sanathnagar' Hyderabad'}

¶16

The Assistant^{DeputyEngineer'TSSPDCL,at Jubilee Hills' Hyderabad'}

¶17

The Assistant^{Engineer, TSSPDCL, at JubileeHilts'Hyderabad'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under^{Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissu.eanappropriateWritordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthe natureofWritofmandamusdeclaringtheactionoftheRespondentNo'Tandits staffindisconnectingelectricityconnectionvideUSCNo'1'14'129968'inrespectof

¶20

property bearing^{plot No. 1, in Sy No' 32, of GuttalaBegumpetVillage'Madhapur'} Hyderabad,withoutanynoticetothePetitionerandinnotrestoringthesameon the representations^{dated 17 - 06 2023 and 01' 07 ' 2023} '^{made by the Petitioner} totheRespondentNos.3toT,asarbitrary,illegal'andviolativeofarticlesl4'2'l'

¶21

and 300- A of the Constitution of Indiaand consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to act upon the above sard representations dated 17. 06. 2023 and^0'1. 07.2023, to restore the electricity connection vide USC No^-'14129968.

¶22

lA NO:^'l OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased to direct} the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 to act upon^{the above saidrepresentations} dated 17.06.2023 and 0'1 .O7 2023, to^{restorethe electricity connectionvideUSC} No. 114129968^pending disposal of the^{above writ petition.}

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl.^{KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent^No.1 GP FOR ENERGY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^Nos. 2 to 7 : SRI R VINOD REDDY SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶27

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶28

"''{

¶29

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION o.zotzo ot 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

. Heard the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the Learned Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counset for TSSpDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 7.

¶33

2, PERUSED THE RECORD.

¶34

3 T-he petitioner approached the Court seeking the relief as follows:

¶35

"to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particulai-ly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.7 and its staff in disconnecting electricity connection vicje USC No.114129968, in respect of property bearlng Plot Ni.r. L, in Sy.No.32 of Guttalabegumpet Village, trladhapur, Hyderabad without any .nL'tice to the petiticner and in not restoring the .same on the representations datec, 17.06.2023 an4 01.07.2023, made by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 3 to 7, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 to act

¶36

¶37

¶38

upon the above said represe n ta ti()n s dated 17.06.2023 and 01.07.2023, to restore the electricity connection vide USC No.1 14129968.,,

¶39

The learned Standing Counsel appcaring on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 represented tha t the writ petition could be disposed of directing respondent lJos. 3 to 7 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 17.06.2023 and 01.07.2023 seeking restoration of electricity connection vide USC No.114129968 by prescribing a i':.::onable period.

¶40

Tal<ing into consideration the above referred submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner.dated 17.06.2O23 and OL.O7.2A23 seeking restoration of electricity connection vide USC No.114129968, which accoiding to the petitaoner had been disconnected without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner on 75.06.2023 in accordance to law, within a period of two (O2) weeks

¶41

-t

¶42

.-'7

¶43

from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, duly

¶44

communicating the said decision to the petitioner.

¶45

Wath the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However there shall be no order as to

¶46

costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

Assr3?f$rvR?4BFtR I .ECTtoN^&(rrceA

¶50

,/TRUE CoPYr/

¶51

To, I The Special^{Chief Secretary'State of Telangana' Energy Department'} , l'ttg13tlit#Jli"^{i'ioo'..""t''Southe rn Power Distributio n companv} ' ;i';r"#i,;" Lto,^nt 51_q^{ii"t, u} ?t JyS^{B'l,tilh ai rata b ad, H yde ra bad} 3. The^{Superint"ry"ll_:19'} +:ipbtl, rt Sanathnagar,^Hyderabad. i llS^{E::i",',J'f.ElL?l ili;cil'is} " ".^{" ?q'l,Ydfi} [:^{lide ra bad} 6 iil; ru;a{^D-"pyt ETSSEtIilLiShiS i,i[]ii,o"r+ql.

¶52

lff:ti:j:t{Hlttml"s"?'=f^{;:si'I#tt"'31"'"?'"'"'sanaa'i}

11.Two^{CD CoPies}

SB BS

J"-

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10812023

ORDER

1 $s; STATE O'q'
s
(c
a
i 1$ uut $B //
?'
-.. Oqi;tr',
ii:::-:*. -

¶61

WP.No.20120 of 2023

¶62

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶63

((9,/-.: t"fr Io\t1->

Jakkula Narasimha Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakkula Narasimha Yadav 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

M/s. Anjana Sravani Enterprises Vs Union of India

Kollipara Aravinda Babu, Vs The Union of India

Maskuri Narsimlu Vs The Union of India

M/s. Gilpra Infra Private Limited Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution, Corporation Limited

Matta Sravanthi, Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

M/s. Sjm Associates Vs The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.