Disposed

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Aug 2023WP/21251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the removal of electricity connection without due process. The court, deeming electricity a basic amenity, disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider representations and restore supply within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents to consider representations and restore electricity connection within two weeks after proper notice.

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS^{JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:21251^{OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon,^{Wo.LateMohammadMoinuddin Aged about.65} vears Occ. Household Alo.H.tto.+-tSO^{RoshammagariVeedhiKo_dad,Kodad} il/landal, Suryapet District^{Represented by herGPA Holder Mohd.lahrr Hasan} s/o.late Mohdmmas^{MoinJddin Aged- about43 years occ. Business} Alo..Noa-tSO Roshammagari^{veedhi Kodad,Kodad Mandal,Suryapet} District

¶10

...PETtrtoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

'l.TheStateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipleSecretary,EnergyDepartment' Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶13

The Assistant Divisions^{Engineer (A D E} ).^{Telanganastate southernPower} Diskibution Limited^{(TSSPDCL), Kodad' Suryapet District'}

¶14

The Assistant Engineer,^{Telangana State Southern Power DistributionLimited} (TSSPDCL), Kodad, Suryapet District.

¶15

Seeram Sai Prasad, S/o.Pandu^{Aged about 60 years Occ Advocate} R/o.H.No.12-1^{1 - 182 Warasiguda, Secunderabad}

¶16

Kusuma Jagadeshwar,^{S/o.RajaMallala.n} 4O-qO^{goyl 60 years Occ Business} R/o.Plot No--+Z A^{P texf Book bolonyWard No 3, Hyderabad'} .

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article²²⁶ oI^{lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue appropriate writ^{or direction particularly onein-th.e} .nature.of^writ of Mandamus declaiing^{the actionof the Respondent No.2and3 without following} due process of law and^{withoutany intimation removing the existingele-ctrical} connection of^{petitioners properties i.e. Residential House bearingNo.4-149/2an} extent of 77 Sq.Yds^{and house bearing No.4-150an extentof 104 Sq.Yds} situated within the^{municipal limits of Kodad, Kodad Mandal, SuryapetDistrict} withour considering the^{representationsdt. 15t06t2023,2010712023, 2810712023} as being illegal,^{aibitrary and violation of article14,21 of Constitutionof lndia} and corisequLnily direct^{ihe respondent 2 and3 forthwithto restore the electricity} connection over the^{petitioner'sproperties.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the HighCourt m:ly be pleased 1o} Jirect the Respondent^{No.2 and 3 to forthwith considerthe Petitioner's} Representationdated'15/06/2023'2OtO7t2O23,2BtO7t2O23tryrestoringthe connectior.r of^{petitioner,s properties} - petitioner's^{propertiesi.e.} "l"it"",tv Resideniial House^{bearingNo 4-14gt2an extent of 77 Sq.Yds arrd house-bearing} No.4.l50anextentof,l04Sq.YdssituatedwithinthemunicipallimitsofKodad, xooao t,tanoat. Suryapet^{District pending disposal of the Writ Pe.,ition,}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIS. RAMA MOHAN RAO}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1: GP FORENERGY}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2 & 3: SRIR' VINOD REDDY' S(; FORTSSPDCL} Counsel for the^{Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶24

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶25

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.21251 oF 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counse! for the^petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing for respondent No.l, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counse! appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶29

The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

¶30

"to issue appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 without following due process of law and without any intimation removing the existing electrical connection of petitioner's properties i.e., Residential House bearing No.4-149/2 an extent of 77 Sq.Yds and house bearing No.4-150 an extent of 104 Sq.Yds situated within the municipal limits of Kodad, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District without considering the representations dt L5.06.2023, 20.07.2023 and 28.O7.2023 as being illegal arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, and 2l of

¶31

¶32

.:*q
._/

¶33

Constitution of India and consequently, d irect respondents 2 and 3 forthwith to restol-e the electricity connection over the petitioner,s properties. "

¶34

Without going into merits of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the ele,ctricity is the basic amenity to the person which cannot be deprived, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner,s representations, dated 1S.06.2023, 20..O7.2O2g, 24.07.2023 forthwith, pertaining to the restoration of electricity connection to the petationer,s subject properties i.e., Residential House bearing No.4_L4g12 to an extent of 77 Sq.yards and house bearing No.4_ 15O to an extent of 1O4 Sq.yards situated within the municipal limits of Kodad, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District, by giving due notice and reasonable opportunity to both the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a peraod of two (O2) weeks from l:he date of receipt of copy of this order duly communicailing the said decision to both the petitioner and also respondent

¶35

¶36

Nos.4 and 5. However,^{there shall be no order as to}

¶37

costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending in this Writ}

¶39

Petition, shall stand^closed. , 7

ASsrSll'$ivi?3'E+iiR

,TTRUE^COPY/'

SECTION^OFFTCER

To,

2 3 4 4 6 7 ffi$Effiffi;pl;ffijl:Two^{CD CoPtes}

I I

c;c ToDAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:21^10812023

,ie ,,..> s' ATE o
<i
u 11 Nlqls 7-o
loo
, /,,
._1,
io
i"

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.21251^{of 2023}

¶57

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

D
j
{

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Jeevaka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

Syed Zaker Vs Union of India

Mohd Akber Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Andhe Naga Sonali Vs State of Telangana

Md. Zaki Uddin, Sec-Bad. Vs C.E.O., Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sec-Bad. and Ano.

M/s Legend Minerals, Vs The State ofTelangana