Allowed

Kantilal , KantilalSugandhi v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/44955/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus for a new domestic electricity connection, arguing the rejection was arbitrary because his son objected. The Court directed the respondents to provide the connection immediately if the petitioner fulfills prescribed conditions, ignoring the specific contention regarding the separate kitchen.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to provide domestic service connection to petitioner immediately upon fulfillment of prescribed fee and general conditions.

Kantilal , KantilalSugandhi Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I32',tel

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:44955 OF 2022

¶7

..^Between:

¶8

Kantilal @ Kantilal Sugandhi, S/o. Late Kishandas, Aged aboul 72 years, Occ , Business, R/o.H No 21-3-187, Sugandh Sagar Lane, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Southern Power Distribution Company of TS Limited, Rep by its Assistant Divisional Engineer, Distribution lX City lll, TSSPDCL, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt.Yashaswini Sugandhi, Wo.Shantilal @ Shantilal Sugandhi, aged 39 years, Occ : House wife, Rio. H. No.21-3-187, Moosa Bowli, Sugandh Sagar Lane, Hyderabad.

¶14

(R - 3 rs impleaded as per Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in LA.No.2 ot 2022)

¶15

...RESPONOENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one on the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application of New domestic electricity Connection to the petitioner's house bearing No.21-3-187, Moosa Bowli, Sugandh Sagar, Hyderabad on 03.12.2022wtthout assigning any reasons illegal, arbitrary. high handed and voilative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to install the new service meter connection in the premises H.No.21-3-187, Moosa Bowli, Sugandh Sagar, Hyderabad forthwith in the interest of justice.

¶17

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

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 direct the Respondents No.2 to^provide New Domestic^{ElectricityConnection} immediately to the premises H.No.21-3-187, situated at Moosa^{Bowlt, Sugandh} Sagar Lane, Hyderabad forthwith,^pending disposal of the above^{writ petition.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.T.M.VANI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : G.P FOR^ENERGY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.R.VINOD^REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI.NYAYAPATHI^PRASHANT

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADTIAVI DEVI WRI^T PETITION No.44955 of²⁰²²

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition is hled seeking a writ of^{mandamus declaring} the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the^{applicationof the} petitioner for new domestic electricity connection to the petitioner's house bearing No.21-3-187, Moosa Bowli, Sugandh Sagar, Hyderabad u.ithout assigning any reasons as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to install the ncu, service mcter connection in the petitioner's premises forthsith ancl to pass such other order or orders.

¶27

l.earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that t]re pctitioncr being the owner of the house bearing No. 21-3-187, Moosa tson'li, Sugandh Sagar, Hyderabad, has ma.de al applicat ion for dome stic setwice connection on 24.11.2021, however, the same rvas rejecteci vidc online acknowledgment dated O3.I2.2021 without assigning any reasons therefor. Challenging the said rejection order, thc present Writ Petition is hled

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitte<l that the respondcnts have rejected the application onl-r' on th(' I;:rsis, r.rf the letter given by one of the sons of tne petitioner s'ho hen,e objected 1o issuing of domestic eleciricitl, supply to him in orcler to harass the petitioher. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sLlbnritte(l thal

¶29

PMD,J w.P.No.44955 ot 2^-)

¶30

¶31

the petitioner br:ing 75 years olcr aged person is suffering without electricity supply.

¶32

One of the, sons of thc petitioner has also got impleaded as respondent No.3 and has filecl counrer affidavit.

¶33

The ofhcial respondents i.e., respondent No.2 has frled counter affrdavit stating that the1. ha'e r,spected the premises of the petitioner and found that there \'erc t\ o domestic power connections in the premises and since there u'its r)o scparatc kitchen to the said property in the occupation of the ltctrrr, ,lrr.r, ne\' sen,ice connection cannot be provided.

¶34

Learned counsel for r ht' petitioncr submitted that the entire property belonge,d to thc pctitioner and his sons have created unregistered gift deeds arrd arc claiming the property through the said documents and rn order to hau-ass the petitioner, they have given letters to th e 2"a responclenl sla[ing tl-rat the petitioner should not be given power supply. it is also sr:rtcc1 that the suits are pending before the Civil Court in respect o[ thc sai<l property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted tlrat from the rejection order itself, it is clear that u,ithout an\ apl)lr(.ition of mind arld without any due verification, the responcle,ts h:*,e rejccteri the application of the petitioner to provirle nc$ scr| j, , , on neclion.

¶35

PMD,J W.P.No.c4955 ot 2022

¶36

¶37

Having regard to the above contentions and^{particularly the fact} that the petitioner is aged 75^{years and is the owner of the said} property and is residing in the said property without electricity^{due to} the objection raised by his own sons,^{who are also claiming through} unregistered gift deeds supposed executed by the^petitioner, it^{is clear} that he was the owner of the entire propert]' and it is his fundamental right to get power connection in respect of this property in his occupation, provided the petitioner fulhlls general terms and conditions of the power supply. Therefore the respondents cannot insist that the portion in u,hich the petitioncr is residing should have a sepa-rate kitchen. The respondcnts are therefore directed to provide domestic service connection to the petitioner on the petitioner paying prescribed fee. The power connection sl'roulcl be given immediately if the petitioner fulfills all other conditions.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶39

Miscellaneous applications, if an1, pencling, shali also stand

closed.

1 \

SD/. N. CHANDRA^SEKHARRAO ASSibiANi RicrsTun I /ITRUE coPY/'

¶44

,EcrtoN 66rtcen

¶45

l.ThePrincipalsecretary,EnergyDepartment'Secretariat'StateofTelangana at Hvderabad.

¶46

at Hvderabad.

¶47

2 ?i''l-l,n.Ji"rij-,ii Oivisionat^{Engrneer,Southern power Distribution Company of} is=1fi it5i,'rjii,iui,ti""^{r i i'tvr r r,' r-s919cL' c ha rmi n ar'Hvd erabad'}

¶48

1. One CC to SMT.T.M^{VAN|Advocate IUPUUI} 4. 5.# 6; il Snr lrVAvnpntti^{pnnsrinNr,Adv-ocatetoPUCl}

¶49

1. 6;; cd io sni^{n vtNoo REDDY,Advocate(oPUC)} 6. Two CD^CoPies

S.A GJP

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010412023

ORDER

WP.No.44955 of 2022

\ai: $l',1f
+
C)
.-)
2 1 [?I\ 2$23
k

DISPOSING OF THE^W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@q;"t

.A ^\33

Kantilal , KantilalSugandhi v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantilal , KantilalSugandhi v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Om Sri Sairam Electricals Vs Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

N. Raghavan Nair Vs V.C. and M.D., A.P. Housing Board and 14 Oths

M/s. Bnju Metals and Alloys Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Mirza Jahangir Baig Vs The State of Telangana

S.Gyaneshwar Giri Vs The State of Telangana

Jilakari Madhava Rao Vs The State of Telangana