Disposed

G.Madhusudhan Reddy v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/9044/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the inaction of electricity authorities in supplying power to constructed premises. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the release of power supply subject to compliance of terms and production of an occupancy certificate within a prescribed period. It reserved action if the property was found to be vacant land with no structure.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to release power supply subject to compliance and production of an occupancy certificate; reserved action if property is vacant land.

G.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,IHE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:902t4 oF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Madhusudhan occ- 500 034,Business r/o .^ng99.y, H.No.^s/o 38/8.^G MLA-Cotony,'Bffirl^{Ranga Reddy} aged aboutHills, Hyderabad-54 years,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Southern Power Distributron Company of Telangana Limited, rep. by its

¶12

3i;l[Xil.1i5,yS*lg'lg^{oi'.."t"i,"hi'ii;ri,ti'c"Yi"[t" om# Aio]i-sd, nrint}

¶13

The Superintehdino Fnoineer, Operation, Cybercity Circle, Gachibowli.v'vvr vrtv 3. -^Hyderabad The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Gachibowli Sub_Division, Hyderabad i.r''l 4. creater Hyderabad M,",a,p;i c;;b;;;d;, H.";;it! commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direition, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to decrare the inaction of the respondent authorities in releasing the power supply to the premises constructed on plot No. 537, 538 and 539 in Sy.No. 74 situated at Gopalpally village, Serilingampally Mandar, R'R.District inspite of compretion of the formarities and payment of the requisite amount as being iregar, arbitrary and unjust and consequenry direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein to rerease the power suppry without insisting to occupancy certificate from the 4th respondent, and to grant such other rerief or reliefs as this Hon'bre court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

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 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein to provide the electricity connection to the premises constructed on Plot Nos 537,538 and 539 in Sy.No. 74 situated at Goplpally village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District, without insisting upon Occupancy Certificate from the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PERLA NARESH BABU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3: SRl. R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRl. M.A.K MUKEED, SC FOR GHMC The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS^RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.9O44 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed^{seeking writ of mandamus declaring} the inaction of the respondent authorities^{in releasing the power} supply to the premises constructed^{on Plot No.537, 538 and 539 in} Sy.No.74 situated at Gopalpally^{Village, SerilingampallyMandal,} R.R.District, in spite of completion of the^{formalities and payment} of the requisite amount as being^{illegal, arbitrary and unjustand} consequently to direct respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3 herein to releasethe} power supply without insisting occrlpancy certificate^{from the 4th} '1 respondent.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner, Sri R.Vinod} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for^{TSSPDCLappearing for} respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri M.A.K.Mukeed, learned^Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.4.^{With their} conserit, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the^stage of^admission itself.

¶27

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned^counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the^present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the orders^{passedby this Court} in W.P.No.39196 of 2022 dated2I.lO.2022.

I I

The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the rcspondents herein.

¶32

In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the order dated 21.1O.2O22 passed in W.P.No.39 196 of 2022, tl:re present Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents to release the power supply to the premises of the petitioner, subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certihcate from the Municipal Corporation, within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy certifrcate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accord4nce with law. Further, this order does not preclude the off,icial respondents from rejecting the application made by the petitioner, if it is found that the subject property is a vacant land and no

¶33

structure is in existence. There shall no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶35

sD/-K.AMiiAJt ASSISTANT REGISfRAR //TRUE COPY// e/ SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

¶38

The Chairman and Managing Director , Southern Power Distribution Companv of Telangana Limited, having its Corporate Office At 6-1-50, Mint Compodnd,' Hyderabad.

¶39

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Cybercity Circle, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶40

3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Gachibowli Sub-Division, Hyderabad 4. The Commissioner,GreaterHyderabad Municipal Corporation,tint< gunO, Hyderabad

¶41

One CC to M/s. PERLA NARE_S_H_BABU, Advocate [OpUC] 6. One CC to SRt. R. vtNoD RFDDY,SC FoR TSSpDbLtOpucI

¶42

One CC to SRl. M.A.K. MUKEED,SC FOR GHMCIOP0CI

¶43

Two CD copies ^,,^X-.a--

tz|,|'

l I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412023

ORDER

WP.No.9O44^{ot 2023}

'.1.f: Si; i-r1
? E APN 2[8
i.!
.,2
..t

¶51

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITIONAT THE} STACE^{OF ADMISSIONWITHOUT COSTS}

¶52

G.Madhusudhan Reddy v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Madhusudhan Reddy v. 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakarla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kurakula Sai Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Ishrath Khan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Enti Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Orange Avenues Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others