High Court at Hyderabad wrote up the superseded Writ Petition by TSSPDCL directed to pay unauthorized usage charges was dismissed for non-prosecution due to petitioner's absence.
The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to seek recall of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[321e I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO: 23524 OF 2015
Between:
Mrs. Sree Latha Samuel, W/o Late. James Samuel, Aged about 67 yrs, R/o. Old age home, Temporarily residing at plot no.1 702, LH3, Lanco Hills, lr,4anikonda, Hyderabad -500089.
,..PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of hrlandamus declaring the provisional Assessment order passed by the 4th respondent vide Lr. No. ADE/O/GREENLANDS SD/DNO 1 1 1 9 dt.9/10/2014 in respect of SC No.A1004168 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 89,958 towards unauthorised usage charges, Final Assessment Order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Order No. DEA/HYD/DAT,1 35250 D No.7966 dl. 2111112014 confirming the provisional order and order passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal no.7796 of 2015 vide Lr. No- SE/ Assessments/SAP. No: 7796 D.No.4'15 dl.2l6l2o15 as illegal, arbitrary, passed in a mechanical manner by non-application of mind, contrary to the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and consequently set aside the same and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication and with a further drrection to the respondents not to take any coercive steps till the disposal of the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 3049 7 0F 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondenl in Appeal no.7796 of 20'15 vide Lr.No.SE/Assessments/SAP No: 7796 D No.415 dt.2l6l2o15 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 201'\A/VMP. NO: 1690OF 2016 Between:
...PETlTlONERl)/RI:SPONDENTS
AND
lr,4rs Sree Latha I arnuel, W/o Late. James Samuel, Age: 67ye:ars R/o. Oldage home, Temporari z residing atplot no.1702,LH3,Lancr: Hill';,Ir,4antkonda, Hyderabad 50008 I
...RESPOTIDENT/PETITIONER
Petition un( 3r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurlstznces statedin
the affidavit filed n sLrpport of thepetition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto vacate the rnterrrr .rders dated: 29-07-2015 in WP.M.P.N:..\O4t)7 of 2015in W.P No.23524 ,rf 015 and dismiss lhe writpetition
Counsel for the P )titioner: SRI P. VENKATA RAO(NOT PRESI:NT) Counsel for the R )spondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, S.C. Fr)tlTSiSPDCL
The Court made t re following: ORDER
ttI i i
t I
THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
qrRIT PETITION No.23524 of 2O15
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is frled seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4tr, respondent in passing the provisional Assessment order vide Lr.No.ADE/O/GREBNLANDS SD/D.NO. 1 I 19, dated 09.1O.2OL4 in respect of SC No.A1004168 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.89,958/- towards unauthorized usage charges, Final Assessment Order passed by the 3.d respondent vide Order No. DtrA/ HYD / D AT / 1 35250/D.No .7 966, dated 2 l. I | .2O I 4 conhrming the provisional order and order passed by the 2"d respondent in Appeal No.7796 of 2O15 vide Lr.No.SE/Assessments/SAP.No.7796 /D.No.415dated 02.06.2015as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and remand the matter back to the appellate eruthority for fresh adjudication and with a further direction to respondents not to take coercive steps till the disposal of the same and to pass such other order or orders.
) I
I )
caption "for dis rissal" on 19.04.2023. Inspite of [he rnatter being listed under l lre -i rpl ion "for dismissal", there is no -e cresentation on behalf of thr' p:t r ioner even today. In view of the sanre it is presumed that the petrtion( r rs not intcrested to pursue the Writ l)etition.
Miscell;rrrr',: L:; eppliczrtions, if any pending, ,;hall also stand closed
SD/. MOHD. SAI{ALILLAH ANSARI ASSIS ANIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s,ECl6f OFFICER To, 2. Ore '1 . O1e )(: ;r;r, ,,, ,t I :t trt t, VENKA VtNoD RbDDy rA RAO, S.C Advocate f;'idIOPUC] sPDCL [()PUC] 3. Two l[) t]c rrr:s IUP GJP 2.
HIGH COURT
DATI]D:1 910412023
.(:. t'
q,
1J
ORDER
WP.No.23524 of 2015
DISMISS!NG THE W'FIIT PET]TION FOR NON-PROIiECUTION WITHOIJT COSTS
rc) I'rfn . (,
Mrs. Sree Latha Samuel
The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited
P. MADHAVI DEVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
