Allowed

Kakarla Baby Meghana v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Telangana HC22 Aug 2023WP/23009/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Relying on a prior order, the Court directed the power distribution company to release the service connection to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to further directives. Dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

To release individual service connection to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Kakarla Baby Meghana Vs Telangana State Southern… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23009 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kakarla Baby ft/eghana, W/o. Ranjit Kumar Age 35 years Occ Business Rl/o. Plot No 't 098, Flat No. 102, Sivambika Residency. Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda. Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman - cum - Managing Director.

¶13

The Superintending Engineer. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyuth Soudha. Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶14

3- The Divisional Engineer. Operation Kondapur TSSPDCL

¶15

The Asst. Divisional Engrneer. Operation Kondapur TSSPDCL

¶16

The Assistant Engineer. SE/OP/GHYD East AE OP Allapur TSSPDCL

¶17

Greater Hyderabad lt4unicipal Corporation Circle 20, Rep. by its Commissioner. Tank Bund Road. Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 it a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAN/US rjeclaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not receiving the application form and release lhe individual service connection to the petitioner, the Plot No.^'1099. admeasuring 300 Sq.yds., forming part of in Survey Nos. (11/14, 11115, 11116.11t17. and 11/18. Part of Survey. No.'1^'1 , situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally lt4andal. Ranga Reddy District, and bounded by North. Plot No. 1^'100, South. Ploi No 1098. East 30 wide road, West. Plot^No.

¶20

1104, as rllegal, null.^{vod. arbitrary and consequentlydirect the respondentsto} receiveapplicattonanrl.eleasethepoWCrSUpplywithoutbeinginfluencedbythe instructtons of the^{6th respondent.}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Se:tion^{151 CPC praying that in the cirCUmStanCeSstatedin} the affidavit^{filed in sur)portof the petition, the High Court may be pleased lo} directtherespondentslto5innotreceivingtheapplicaticnandreleasingthe individual service^{conn€ction to the petitioner the Plot No. 1099, admeasuring 300} Sq.yds , formtng^{pad cf in Survey Nos (11114' 11t15,1111i'11117} '^{and 11118'} PartofSurvey.No,-ll.situatedatKhanametVillage,serlingampallylr4andal, Ranga Redcly^{District.: nd bounded by North Plot No l l00' South Plot No '1 098'} East. 30' wide^{road.\r'J e st Plot No. 1 104'}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitio rer : SHt'THAKUR ROOPASINGH}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respo rdents No.1to5:SRIR'VINOD REDDY' SC FOR} TSSPDCL

¶25

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.6 : Mr'M'A'K'MUKHEED' SC FOR GHMC}

¶26

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶27

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No .23OO9 of 2O23

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard Smt.Thakur Roopa Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr.R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and also heard Mr.M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.6

¶31

2, PERUSED THE R.ECORD

¶32

The petitioner approached the Couft seeking the^prayer

¶33

as follows:

¶34

" to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in not receiving the application form and not releasing the individual service connection to the petitioner, the Plot No.1099, admeasuring 300 sq.yards, forming part of in Survey^Nos.11/14, ll/75,11/16,11/77 and 11118, Part of Survey^No.11, in Sy.Nos.11/8, ll/9,11/lO and ll/7I Part of Sy.No. i 1, Situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampaiiy Mandal. Ranga Reddy District^and boundecj by I,lorth:Plot^{No.1100, South:Plot No.109B;} East:30' wide road; West:Piot^No.1104 as^{illegal and} arbitrary and consequently to^{direct the respondents to} receive application and release the^{power supoly} without berng influenced by the^instructions of^the61"

¶35

respondent irnd^pass such other^{order or orde-s as this} Hon'ble Cou-t may deerr fit and^{properin th.l interest} of^justice."

¶36

When the matter is taken up, it^{is sr-rbmittedby} the learned counsel for the^{petitioner that the issue} involved in the^present Writ^{Petition issquarely} covered by the order^passed by^{thir; Court in} W.P.No.2OO5O ol 2023, dated 27.O7.2023.

¶37

Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing^{Counsel for} Telangana Sjiate Power Distribution Company^Limited appearing lor respondent Nos.1 to 5^andSri M.A.K.Mukheed, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing^on behalf of Rr:spondent No.6/GHMC authority^{did not} dispute the ilforesaid submission made by^{the learned} Counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

Taking into consideration the submissicns^madeby the learned Counsel appearing on behalf cf^petitioner as well as rerspondents and for the^{reason-<;alike in the} above said order passed by this Court in^\r', P.No'2OO50 of 2023, dated 27.O7.2023, this Writ Petition is

¶39

¶40

disposed of directing the respondents to release individual service connection to the petitioner within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the same shatl be subject to further direction that may be issued by the State of Telangana or the Apex Court in the litigation pending before it arising out of the order dated 12.O9.2O12 in writ petition No.2O4O7 of 2OOg and batch.

¶41

With these observations, the Writ petition is disposed of

¶42

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Mlscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶44

SDi.B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGI9TRAR

//TRUE COPYil

3,, sEcfloN 6rHCen

To,

The Chairman - cum - Managing Director, Telanqana State Southern power ^^{DistributionCompany_Limited,Vidyuth Soudha. Somaliguda,Hyderabad.} 2. The Superintending Engineer, Telangana State Souih-ern power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somaiiquda, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Divisional Engineer, Operation Kondapur TSSpDCL

¶50

The Asst- Divisional Engineer, Operatron Kondapur TSSpDCL

¶51

The Assistant Engineer, SE/OP/GHYD East AE Op Ailapur TSSpDCL 6. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad It4unicipal Corporation Circle 20, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶52

one cc to SF{I.THAKUR ROOPA StNGH, Advocate. topucl B. One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC for TSSpDCL iOpUCl 9 One CC to SRI IV.A.K.II/UKHEED. SC for GHI\4C tOpUCl 10 Two CD Copies. BS K GJ P

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210812023

a r i;,r::,--r- 1.:..
/ir'
.
I il
i, i';
*tls
,it,, t <br>r',,.r\ l. ...i'
,_ 4. ,-,,/
'{-1, . '- ,i ri.'it ' ; '

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.23009 of 2023

¶59

DISPOSING OI: THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COS;TS

¶60

(9 c't''
g
1)

Kakarla Baby Meghana v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakarla Baby Meghana v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhe Naga Sonali Vs State of Telangana

Smt.Maimuna Khatoon Vs The State of Telangana

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

Sri. Satyapal Goud Kandikanti Vs The Government of India

P. Srujith Reddy Vs Reserve Bank of India

M. Srinivasa Rao Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.