Partly allowed

Syed Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024WP/10476/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of writ petition challenging notice under Section 154 of Electricity Act. Directing respondents not to disconnect power if petitioner deposits 50% assessed amount without balancing issue under Section 154. No order on costs.

What did the court decide?

Not to disconnect power provided petitioner deposits 50% of assessed amount. Balance not to be demanded pending Section 154 proceeding.

Syed Arshad Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF NOVE+'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10476 OF m24

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed Arshad, S/o Dada Saheb, Aged about 30 years, Occ- Business, Rl/oH.No. A/154, Pylon Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Telangana.

¶9

...PET!TIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, Secretariat Building, Dr. 8.R. Ambedkar State Secretariat, Khairatabad, Telangana, Hyderabad

¶12

The The Chainnan, and Managing Director, Power and Energy Depadment, Telangana Hyderabad.

¶13

The Superintendent Engineer, TSSPDCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District..

¶14

The Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Miryalaguda Division, Nalgondas District. 5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Halia, Natgondas District, Telangana.

¶15

The Assistant Engineer, TSSPDCL, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶16

The Assistant Engineer, (Vigilance and Enforcement), TSSPDCL, Nalgonda District' Telangana'

¶17

...RES'.NDENT'

¶18

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 padicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents M.5 to 7 in issuing the irnpugned notice thmugh vide letter No. ADE/OP/Haliya/D No.919/23, dt. 1110912023 and registered the case vide DPE/NLG/SDO112161412023 aM directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.2,46,971/- and dis-connected the power connection to the petitioner house vide Service No. 3949401993 and threatening to pay amount to them by registering the false case against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Artic{es 14, 15,21 ol the Constitution of lndia and violative of natural^justice and consequently set

¶19

¶20

aside the impugned^{notice vide letter No. ADE/OP/HaliyaiD.No.9'.tgi23dated 11-} og-2o23 issued by^{the Respondents No.sto 7 and to set aside the illegal case} vide No. DPE/NLG/SDO^{-1121614t2OO3and also direct the RespondentsNo.5 to 7} to provide the^{power connection to the petitionerhouse vide service No.} 3949401993 and not to^{threaten the petitioner to pay amount to themby} registering false case against^{the petitioner} lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleasedto} stay of all^proceeclings vide letter^{No. ADE/OP/Haliya/D.No.919/23dated} 11l}gt2o23 and consequently^{direct the RespondentsNo.5 to 7 to provide the} power connection to the^petitioner house vide^{service No. 3949401993and not} lo threaten the^{petitionerto payamount to them by registering false case against} the petitioner,^pending disposal^{of the writ petition}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1&2: GP FORENERGY}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.3to7:SRI R. VINOD REDDY'} SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

HON,BLE MRS^{JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶27

WRIT PETIT^{ION No.10476ot 2(J24}

¶28

ORD ER:

¶29

Heard Sri Rapolu^{Bhaskar,learned counsel} appearing on behalf^{of thepetitioner'learned} Government^{Pleader for Energy,appearingon behalfof} respondent Nos.1^{& 2 and Sri R' Vinod Reddy' learned} Standing Counsel^{for TSSPDCL,appearing on behalf of} respondent^{Nos.3 to 7.}

¶30

Z. The^{petitionerapproachedthe Court seeking} prayer as follows:

¶31

".-.to issue an^{appropriate writ, orderor directionmore} particularly one in the^{nature of Writ of Mandamus} declaring the^{action of the respondentsNos' 5 to 7 in} issuing the impugned^{notice through vide letter} No.ADE/OP/Haliya/D.No.919/23^{dttL/09/2023and} registered the^{case vide DPE/NLG/SDO-I12L6L412O23} and directing^{the Petitionerto pay Rs'2,46'971/- and} dis-connected^{the power connectionto the petitioner} house vide^{Service No.3949401993and threateningto} pay amount to them^bY registering the false case against the Petit'loner is illega{, a rbitra rY, unconstitutional,^{violationof Articles t4' L5' 21 of the} Constitution^{of India and i'iolativeof naturaljusticeand}

¶32

¶33

consequently set aside the impugned notice vide letter No.ADE/OP/Haliya/D.No.919/23 dated L7.09.2023 issued by the Respondents Nos.s to 7 and to set aside the illegal case vide No. DPE/NLG/SDO-I/27614/2003 and also direct the Respondents Nos.5 to 7 to^provide the power connection to the petitioner house vlde servico No. 3949401993 and not to threaten the petitioner to pay amount to them by registering false case against the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶34

The brief facts oF the case are that the petitioner is the on,ner and^possessor of house bearing No.A/154, situated at Pylon Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar Town, Nalgonda District. The petitioner purchased the said property from lawful owner and the Municipal Authorities mutated his name into municipal records.^Thereafter. the Government of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.Nos.58 and 59 and directed the authorities to regularize the unauthorized construction. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application before concerned authorities. Later, tn(r respondent authorities have conducted panchanama and collected the charges and regularized the petitioner's house under G.O.Ms.No.59 and tssued conveniencr: deed to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner

¶35

¶36

I I

¶37

has obtained^{power connectbnvide S.C.No.39494O1993 and} the petitioner is^paying reguhr^{chargesto respondent No.6-} While things stood thus, the^{respondentNos.5to 7 registered} a false case against the^{petitioner vide No.DPE/NLG/SDO-I/} 21614/2003 and issued the^{letterNo.ADE/OPI} Haliya/D.No.919/23 dated 11.O9.2023^{and directedthe} petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,46,971l-^underthe provisions of Section 154 Clause⁽⁵⁾ of^{Electricity Act, 2003} and threatened to disconnect^{the powerconnection and} demanding to^pay the^{said amount. Hence. the present writ} petition.

¶38

It is represented by the^{learned counsel appearingon} behalf of the^petitioner and^{Sri R. Vinod Reddy,learned} Standing Counsel appearing^{on behalf of respondent Nos'3to} 7 that the subject issue in the^{present writ petition is squarely} covered by the order of this Court^{dated 24.08.2021passedin} W.P.No.19821 of 2021, h€nce the^{presentwrit petitioncould} I I be disposed of in terms of the^{order ofthis Court} dated 24.08.2021^{passed in W.P.No.19B2lof 2021.}

¶39

¶40

'l I i I 1

¶41

fn view of the same and for the reasons alike in the order dated 24.O9.2O21 passed in W.p.No.19821 of 2O21, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to disconnect the power suppty subject to the petitioner depositing 5oo/o of the amount assessed as per impugned notice No.ADE/Op,/ Haliya/ D.No.919/23 dated 11.O9.2023. If the petitioner complies with the directions of this Court, the respondents shall not demand the batance amount till the issue is decided under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner shal! pay the monthly consumption charges as per the monthly bills. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

,To'

¶43

Miscelllneous petitions, if any, pelding shall stand SD/.N.SRIHARI closed ASSISTAI|T REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ )\L_ \ -- EECTION OFFICER

¶44

:ti:i["mi,#,:f

¶45

'f""rrhfr1,?,til#::sil,Si#,isdtidt#l

¶46

1,ffi ff^{ii:"lf'H#[i+iii="",,,":]ilftsi,[.?i"i.#iltq"[{{.,,,:,,,ffi} o. Ihe Assistant Enqinee r' TIISPDCL, Nagarjuna sagar, Nalgonda District, -^retan-gana.- :^{pi:?rt",t+:t'#Ensineer,(Vigrilance and Enforcement),TSSpDCL,Narsonda} 1$flffi^{$:;gff [fi b:tttl##tlTiF".,,,".dro,rrp]*,.**,,,}

1 1 . Two CD Copies

BSKBM^w

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112024

ORDER

E SrAta
o
(
q
J
2 S Jiir ,1025 z
Ic)
t
t gQ
a€.s n AT C^

¶53

WP.No.10476 of 2024

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

\ a5
aa

Syed Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Arshad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations)

Rana Manpower and Placement Services (P) Ltd., Vs Apsrtc

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Apcpdcl

M/s. Sai Parenterals Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Sali Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Principal

Ahmed Shujauddin Quadri Vs The State of Telangana