Disposed

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma v. P. Prabhakar Rao

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024CC/1160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case alleging violation of an earlier writ order directing the Assistant Divisional Engineer to consider an electricity service connection. The respondent contended the petitioner failed to furnish required documents despite notices. Finding no deliberate violation, the court disposed of the contempt case, directing document submission and subsequent consideration within set timeframes.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma Vs P. Prabhakar Rao — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEA/BER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1160 OF 2024

¶7

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for wilfully and deliberately/violating the Orders of the High Court dated 19.04.2024 passed in W P. No. 7942 of 2024.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma, Wo. Late Papaiah, Aged about 38 years, Teacher, R/o. Prashanthi Nagar, Laxmidevipally Village and IVIandal, BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

P. Prabhakar Rao, The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Sub-Division, TSNPDCL, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶13

,..RESPONDENT/3.d RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl R. R. KALYAN

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent :SRl ZAKIR ALI DANISH ( SC FOR TSNPDCL )

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE No.115O oF 2024

¶19

CIRDER:

¶20

The petitioner approached the Court^{complaining violation} of the orders of this Court dated^{L9.04.2024 passedin} W.P.No.7942 of 2024.

¶21

Paraoraph No.8 of the order dated^19.O4.2O24 passed in W.P.No.79 42 ot 2024 is extracted hereunder:

¶22

'8. Taking into consideration the above^said submissions of both the learned^{counselfor the} petitioner as wett as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent^{Nos. 2 and 3, the} writ petition is disposed of directing the^petitioner herein to approach the Assistant Divisional^Officer, Operation Sub Division,^{Lakshmidevipalli/Respondent} No.3 along with all the required documents within^a period of one(01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on receipt of the^{same the} respondent No.3 herein in conformity^{with principlesof} natural^justice by^providing reasonable opportunitY of personal hearing to the petitioner, is directed to^pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law,^withina period of one (01) week therefrom with regard to providing electricity service connection to petitioner's land in Sy.No.17/48 to an extent of Ac.0-23 Gts. situated in Prashanthinagar, H/o Laxmidevipalli^Village

¶23

)

¶24

and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. It is further observed that the petitioner is at liberty to putfotth all the pleas as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition before the 3rd respondent and the 3'd respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance to law."

¶25

The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of resDondent and^paraqraoh Nos.3 and 4 of th e said counter affidavit are extracted hererinunder:

¶26

"3. In reply to Para 2 to 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, incompliance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court dated 19.04.2024 the petitioner herein submitted a representation on 26.04.2024 along with certain documents. In response to the said representation a letter was issued to the petitioner vide Lr. No. ADE/OP/LDP/FS-Doc/D. No. 235/24-25 dated 15.07.2024, but the petitioner refused to acknowledge the said letter, as such it was sent through registered post RPAD on 20.07.2024, and as per the tracking report of postal department this letter served on petitioner on 22.07.2024, but till today the petitioner did not submit any further documents. However, on 23.08.2024 one more letter was addressed to the petitioner v id e Lr. No. ADE/O P/ LD P/ F. No. / I D. N o. 329/2425 dated 23.08.2024 requesting her to submit No Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat office Prashanthinagar and present house ownership

¶27

¶28

documents, though initially she was^{not available at} house to receive the letter, but visited^{the office of} Asst. Divisional Engineer and^received the^sameon 30.08.2024, but till today^{no response is received from} the^petitioner.

¶29

It is further submitted that, since the^{petitioner land} is situated in the agency area, in the month^{of June} 1997 the then APSEB issued circular^{whereby itis} mandatory to obtained no objection certificate^from Gram Panchayat for release of^{power supply,as sucha} notice dated 23.08.2024^{petitionerwas requested to} submit no objection ceftificate^{from GramPanchayat} Prashantinagar along with house ownership^documents, as and when such documents is^{furnished the petitioner} request for restoration of^power supply^wouldbe considered. "

¶30

It is the specific case of the respondent that^{inspite of two} notices issued to the^petitioner calling upon the^{petitioner to} submit no objection certificate from Gram^Panchayat, Prashanthinagar along with house ownership^{documents for} release of^power supply to house existing in^{Sy.No.17/48ot} Prashanthinagar, the^petitioner failed to^{submit No Objection} Cetificate from^{Gram Panchayat office, Prashanthinagar and the} other relevant documents.

¶31

¶32

Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that upon the petitioner furnishing the required documents as communicated to the petitioner vide notice dated 15.O7.2024 and 23.08.2024, respondent will release the power connection to the house existing in Sy.No.17148 of Prashanthinagar, Laxmidevipalli Village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

¶33

Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions put forth by both the learned counsel on record and duly considering the averments made at paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that there is no deliberate violation of the orders of this Court dated 19.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.7942 ot 2O24 and accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of directing the^petitioner to submit al! the required documents, as stipulated in the notices dated 15.O7.2024 and 23.O8.2024 through E-Seva or Mee-Seva, within a

¶34

)

¶35

period of one^(O1) week^{from the date of receipt of a copy} of this order and^{upon receiptof all the documents from} the^{petitioneras stipulated in Notices dated t5'O7'2024} and 23.O8.2024^{issued to the petitioner,throughE-Seva} or Mee-Seva,^{the 3'd respondent shall consider the same} within one week^{thereafter, and pass appropriateorders} on petitioner's^{application seekingreleaseof electricity} service connection^{to petitioner's land in Sy'No'17144 b} an extent of^{Ac.O-23 Gts., situated in Prashanthinagar'} Laxmidevipalli^{Village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem}

¶36

District. However,^{there shall be no order as to costs'}

¶37

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pendingin this Contempt}

¶38

¶39

Case, shall stand^closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶42

secl#orrrcen

¶43

To,

¶44

1 One^{CC to SRI R R KALYAN' Advocate[OPUC]} --^- 2 one cc^{to SRIZAKIR ALI fiiifiii#} FoR TsNPDCL )'^{Advocate[oPUC]} 3 Two CD^CoPies

AR /DI(L

HIGFI COURT

DATI:.D:201O912024

ORDER

CC.trlo.1160 ot2024

c,
'-,^
r) s(
t) 02 Lir 2[rz{
zo
3
F
I i)

¶51

CLOSING THE^{CONTEMPT CASE.}

¶52

$tv
c[yt4
rtrr

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma v. P. Prabhakar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma v. P. Prabhakar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Prabhakar Rao Vs Apsrtc,Director,Hyd,and 3

Vikas Mahila Mandali Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S Limited

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company

M/s. Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs R. Sridevi

M/s. Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

M/s. Keerthi Industries Limited, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.