Allowed

Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar Yadav, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023WP/36291/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition regarding the legality of a notice disconnecting electricity supply. The Court ordered restoration of the petitioner's power connection, conditional on depositing 50% of the assessed amount, and barred demands for the balance until resolution under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of power connection subject to payment of 50% of assessed amount; prohibition on demanding balance until Section 154 proceedings are concluded. Regular monthly charges require payment.

Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar Yadav, Vs The Southern… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

wRIT PETITION NO: 36291 OF m14

¶7

Between:

¶8

Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar^{Yadav,S/o:MalleshYadava,} aged 30 year 19-5-1Dl3l8l1lA, Bhadurpura,^{Hyderabad, (ServiceConnection} Bearing No. VZ 02349, LT Category-ll(B)ⁱⁿ the^{name of Sharfuddin).}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Southern Power Distribution^{Companyof Telangana, Limited rep. by its} Chairman and Managing Director,^{MintCompound, Hyderabad,Telangana} State

¶12

2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer,^{Operation Circle,The Southem Power} Distribution Company of^{Tei-anganaLimited, Miralam, Hyderabad,Telangana} State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order of direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{impugned noticein Lr. No.ADE/Miralam/D.No'} 1217 daled 18.10.2O14 as^{h(7hly illegal, arbitr€ryand unjust and consequently, set} aside the same.

¶15

l.A. NO:^'l OF 201^{4(WPMP.NO: 45426 OF 20'14)}

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto direct} the respondents nol^{to disconnect the petitioner's powersupply pursuantto notice} in Lr. No. ADE/Miralam/D^{.No. 1217 dated18.10.2014of the 2nd respondent} pending disposal of the above Writ^Petition

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 2995 OF 2016)

¶18

Between:

¶19

The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana, Limited rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Ivlint Compound, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶20

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle, The Southem power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Miralam, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶21

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

AND

¶23

Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar Yadav, S/o: Mallesh Yadava, aged 30 year 19:1-1913-18.1114,^{Bhadurpura,Hyderabad,(Service Connection Bearing-No.} V202349, LT Category-ll(B) in the name of Sharfuddin).

¶24

...RESPONDENT/PETITONER

¶25

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 vacate the interim orders dated: 27-11-2014 in WPMp No. 45426 of 2014 in W.P.No.36291 ot 2O14 and dismiss the writ petition

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D V NAGARJUNA BABU

¶27

9R\

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents: R VINOO REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO)

¶29

The Court made the follouring: ORDER

¶30

) )

¶31

I ,

¶32

THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.36291 OF 2014

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus

¶36

declaring the impugned notlce 1n letter No.ADE/Miralam/D.No.1217, dated 78.10.2014 of the 2'd

¶37

respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently setaside the same and to pass such other order or orders.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the^present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6478 of 2023, dated O9.03.2023.

¶40

4 The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶41

5 In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the order dated 09.03.2O23 passed in W.P.No.6478 of 2023, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to restore the

wP 3629r_20t4 NBK. J

power connection subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount assessed in the impugned letter dated 18.1O.2014. If the petitioner complies with the directions of this Court, the respondents shall not demand the ba.lance amount till the issue is decided under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner shall pay the monthly consumption charges as per the monthly bills. There shall be no order as to costs

¶46

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any', pending in

¶47

the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶48

sD/-c.PRAVEEN x/rtlan ASSISTANT REGlgTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEcTIoNYFtcER

¶49

To, '1. The Chairman and Managing Director, The Southern Power Distribution Qompany^{of Telangana, Limited MintCompound, Hyderabad, Telangana} State

¶50

The Assistant Divisional Engineer,, Operation Circle, The Southem power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Miralam, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶51

9ne^{CC to Sri D V NagarjunaBabu,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy(SC for TSTRANSCO) IOPUCI

¶53

Two CD Copies

TJ SBv

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112023

ORDER

WP.No.36291 of²⁰¹⁴

rtt E srA}a
(
{!{
oo 3 0 JAI'| 2024
-t
* D ti,,..'\ ,-,iii'

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶62

WTTHOUT COSTS.

¶63

aDo*'gK

Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar Yadav, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar Yadav, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company 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

Gopina Muthyalu, (Sc No.8213-847) S/o. Peda Ramaiah Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited

Bodla Sandhya Rani Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

M/s. Durga Stone Crushers, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Khaja Moizuddin, Vs Tspdcl, Rep. by its Managing Director at Hyderabad.

Super Aqua Systems, Medak Dist. Vs the State of Ts.,Energy,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

R. Srinivasa Rao, Nizamabad. Vs Prl. Secy., Mines and Geology Dept., Hyd. and Ano.