Dismissed

B.Seetha Ratnam, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Telangana HC19 Apr 2023WP/23542/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 and a miscellaneous application under Section 151 CPC for non-prosecution. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing; being listed for dismissal on multiple occasions without representation led to the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and miscellaneous application were dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to seek recall if the cause of action survives.

B.Seetha Ratnam, Vs The Southern Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

I II :

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'ALE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:23542 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

B.Seetha Ratnam,, W/o B.Dhanunjay Rao, Aged about 52^yrs, Fi/o. Plot No.64, MLA and MP Colony, Road No.10 C, JubileeHills, Hyderabad-500033. ...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Southem Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Superintendent Engineer,, Assessments,/TSSPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶14

T[re Divisional Engineer,, Assessments, Corporate office, Hyderabad.

¶15

l'lhe Asst. Divisional ,Engineer,, Operation Circle, Green lands, Southem fower^{Distribution Company of Telangana Limited,Hyderabad.}

¶16

The AAE, Operations, Begumpet, Hyderabad, -

¶17

..RESPoNDENTS

¶18

]

¶19

Petition under^{Article 226 ot the Constitution} of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandarirus declaring the provisional Assessment order passed by the 4th iespondent vide Lr. No. ADE/O/GREENLANDS SD/DNO 1121 dt.9t1Ol2O14 in respectlof SC No.A1004174 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 89,289 towards unauthdrised I usage charges, Final Assessment Order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Order No. DEA /HYD/DAT,135251,D.N0.7967,d1.2111112014 confirming the provisional order and order passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal no.7795 of 2015 vide Lr.No.SE/Assessments/SAP No.7795 D.No.414 dt.2l6l2o15 as illegal, arbitrary , passed in a mechanical manner by nonapplication 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 direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps till the disposal of the same.

¶20

¶21

I i I t ! t

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 30s15 OF 201s)

¶23

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ 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 respondent in Appeal} no.7795 of 2015 vide Lr.No.SE/AssessmenVSAP^{No.7795 D.No.414dt.2l6l2o15} pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and^pass such other order or^{orders as} are deemed fit and^proper in the circumstances^{of the case. pending disposal of} the above writ^petition

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. ltlOr^{'t423 0F 2016):}

¶25

Between:

¶26

'1.. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,^{Mint Compound,} ityOegpq{

¶27

1. The Superintendent Engineer,.^{Assessments/TsSPDCL'MintCompound,} Hyderabad.

¶28

s. tie Divisional Engineer,,^{Assessments' Corporate-office,Hyderaba.d'} +. Tne Asst. Divisionil ,Engineer,,^{Operation Circle, Greenlands,Southern} Power Distribution Com[any^{of Telangana Limited, Hyderabad'}

¶29

1. TheAAE, Operations, Begumpet,^Hyderabad'

¶30

...pETtnoNERsrRESpoNDENTS

¶31

AND

¶32

B.Seetha Ratnam,, W/o^{B.DhanuniayRao, Aged about52 yrs, R/^o'} ^Plot r.to.o+, rr,rmand Mp Cotony,^{RoaoNo.r0c. Jubilee.Hills,#ffEA?i3;?|'?3iP;.}

¶33

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmaybe pleasedto} vacate the interim orders dated^{29-07-201 5 in w.P.M.P. No. 305150f 2015in} W.P. No. 23542 of 2015 and dismiss^{the writ petition.}

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIP. VENKATA RAO}

¶35

Counsel for Respondents:^{SRI R. VINOD REDDY'}

¶36

SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI i WRIT PETITION Ho.23542 of 2Ol5

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

¶41

This writ Petition is rrred seeking a writ of mandamus decraring the action of the 4tn respondent in passing the provisional Assessment order vide Lr.No.ADE/O/GREENLANDS SD/D.NO.l 12t, dated o9.lo.2ol4 in respect of SC No.Aloo4rr4 directrng the petitioner to pay Rs.89,289/- towards unauthorized usage charges, Final Assessment Order passed by the 3.d respondent vide Order No. DEA/ HYD / D AT / I 352 5 I / D. No .7 962, dated, 2 r. 7 r.2o r 4 confirming the provisional order and order passed by the 2.d respondent in Appeal No.7795 of 20 15 vide Lr.No.SE/Assessments/SAp.No.7795 ! /D'No'414 dated 02.06.2o I5 as illegat and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and remand the matter back to the appellate authority 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.

¶42

The matter was listed on 17.03.2023 and. as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to L2.o4.2023. on 12.04.2023, there n/as no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed under the

¶43

caption "for dismissal" on 19 -04.2023. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption "for dismissa-I", there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner even today. [n view of the same, it is presumed that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the Writ petition.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek recall the order if the cause of action survives in the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs

¶45

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed

¶46

SD/.NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR AO ASSISTANT REGIS AR //TRUE COPY//

¶47

SECTION FFICER To, 'l . One CC to SRI P. Venkata Rao Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, SC for TSSPDCL (OPUC) 3. Two CD Copies MBC SW

I t ! : I )i I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1910412023

:.'-_-'--:.
+: (-,
E
,2,
..-J

¶53

ORDER

¶54

WP.No.23542 ot 2015

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR

¶56

¶57

ffik*

¶58

NON-PROSECUTION, WITHOUT COSTS

B.Seetha Ratnam, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Seetha Ratnam, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Maganti Sudha Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Gandhi Ponnam Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution, Corporation Limited

M/s Narayana Developers Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Mrs. Sree Latha Samuel Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Mis. Vijay Roller Flour Mill, Vs Central Power distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

M/s Srinivasa Binny Rice Mill Vs The Superintendent of Engineer (Operations)