Dismissed

Venkateswarlu a v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Nov 2024WP/12914/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged erection of a 33 KV high tension transmission feeder line through residential colonies in Sahebnagar Kalan. Respondents explained the substation was built on local residents' request to address low voltage, towers do not obstruct roads or plots, and GHMC permission was not mandatory. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Venkateswarlu a Vs State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS^{JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PET]TION No| 12914^{0F 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Venkateswarlu A, S/o:^Chinna Laxmaiah, Aged 38 years, Occupation:Business R/o^5-7-60,Plot No.1 99/201 , BN Reddy Nagar Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad 500070

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State Of Telangana, Rep by^{its PrincipalSecretary, Departmentof Energy} Secretariat, Tank Bund,^{Hyderabad 500022}

¶12

2 Southem Power Distribution^{Company of TelanganaLtd., Rep by its-} - tr,tiniging Director, # 6-1-50,^{MiniCompound,HYDERABAD-S00063'}

¶13

3 Divisional Engineer, Saroon nagarDivision,^{S-outhern Power Distribution} C"mpini oiielang'ana^{Ltd Huda Complex,Kothapet X Road, Saroor Nagar'} Hyderabad - 500035

¶14

4 Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{CgrPorat'ron,} Ee-p^^{by DeputyCommissioner, LB} Nagar Cir6le 3A, Saroomagar,^{Hyderabad 500035.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article²²⁶ oI^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} crrcumstances stated in^{the afflrdavitfiled therewith,the High court may be} pleased to pass a writ, order or Direction^{preferably one in the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring that^{erecting 33 KV HighTension TransmissionfeederLine} forSahebnagarElectricalsub-station,Hayatnagar(M),RangaReddyDistthrough lheresidentialcoloniesespecially30ftroadisillegal,arbitraryand unconstitutional.

¶17

1.A. NO: 1OF 2017( WPMP. NO: 16055 OF 20171

¶18

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased To stay all further^proceedings in erecting 33 KV High Tension Transmission feeder Line for Sahebnagar Electrical Sub- station, Hayatnaga(M), Ranga Reddy Dist through the residential colonies especially 30 ft road^pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. V. PRASAD BABU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (sc FoR TSTRANSCO)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION o.L29L4 of 2,J17

¶27

ORD ER:

¶28

Heard Sri Ch.V. Prasad Babu,^{learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf of^{petitioner,learnedAssistant} Government Pleader for Energy^{appearingon behalf of} respondent No.l and Sri R.^{Vinod Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel for^{TS Transco,appearing on behalf} of respondent Nos.l to 4 and^{Sri Sampath Prabhakar} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel^{for GHMC,appearing} on behalf of respondent^No.4.

¶29

The petitioner approached the Court^seekangthe prayer as follows:

¶30

to issue a Writ order or^direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that erecting 33^{KV High Tension} Transmission feeder Line for Sahebnagar^Electrical Substation, Hayatnagar Mandal,^RangaReddy District through the^{residentialcoloniesespecially} 30 ft road is^{illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutionaI} and^pass...".

¶31

¶32

SNJ tlP 1291{²⁰¹⁷

¶33

The case of the^{petitioner in brief is that petitioner is} the owner cf Plot^{No.7B in Sy.No.157, Sahebnagar Kalan} Village, Hayatnagar^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' The 2nd} Respondent^{planned to construct a new 33 KV Sub-station in} Sahebnagar kalan^{Village, HayathnagarMandal, Ranga Reddy} District ancl the same^{was executed by 3'o respondent} through electrical^{contractors.In consequence to the same} the 3'd respondent^{is erecting33 KV High Tensionoverhead} transmission feeder^{line through the layout and right in front} of the^plot of the^{petitioner through the 30 feet road whichis} against the rules and^{without issuing} notice to the 4th respondent. Hence, the^{writ petition.}

¶34

PERUSED THE RECORD

¶35

4. Count r affidavit h^{as been} filed^{bv the res} ndent Nos.2 and^{? and} the relorr2ll+ l.tara rrnhc'l 2an^{A a, sra} extracted ereunder:

¶36

"1. It is submitted that a 33/11^{KV substation} was erected in Saheb Nagar^{Kalan village,} Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy^{District, to solve the} low voltage problem in the^surroundings resldential colonies. The^power was tapped from

¶37

¶38

SNJ wP 12911 20t7

¶39

the existing Turkyamgal feeder and connectd to the new 33/11 KV substation. For the said purpose the new towers were sought to be erected all along the roads in different residential colonies.

¶40

It is submitted that in order to minimize the area occupied by the said towers on the road new towers Known as M+6 towers were erected and stringing of lines were also completed. The power lines pass above 35 feet from the ground level. The base of the tower is 2.4 x 2.4 f@t and the tower is 2 feet away from the boundary of the plots. The towers do not obstruct the passage of vehicles on the road and do not obstruct the construction of the residential houses in the plots. The said towers are being erected in all populated areas also.

¶41

It is submitted that the aJlegations made by the petitioner that only the towers are being erected in their colony is false. The towers are ere ln other c lonies lso to nnect the DOt,ver lines from he mai 33111 KV substation to the new substation ere d. Th substation has ne do lv on the reo uest oft he ocaIre sldents of nearbv re o eli n al

¶42

¶43

SNJ wP 12914²⁰¹⁷

¶44

w T e nt lo w ret e itioner sre^sidinoshlla lso ha f w w t t s e io A re nt t e n there are^{oDen olots onlv"'}

¶45

Sri R. Vinod^{Reddy, learned StandingCounselfor TS} Transco, appearing^{on behalf of respondentNos'1 to 4} placing reliance on^{the avermentsmade in the counter} affidavit filed^{on behalf of the respondent Nos'2 and 3} referred to and^{extracted above, contendsthat 33/11KV} Sub-station^{was erected in Saheb Nagar Kalana Village'} Hayathnagar,^{Ranga Reddy Districtto solve the low voltage} problem in the surrounding^{residential colonies and the said} Sub-station^{had been erected only on the request of the local} residentsofnearbycoloniestoprovidereliableandquality power and further that^{the towers do not obstruct the} passage of vehicles on^{the road and do not obstructthe} construction of^{the residential houses in the plots'The} learned counsel^{further submitsthat it is not mandatoryto} obtain^{permissionfrom the GHMC and the writ petition is} devoid of^{merits and needs to be dismissed'}

SNJ wP_129t4 2017

6 Taking into consideration the averments made at para Nos.l to 3 of the counter filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 (referred to and extracted above) and dury considering that the sub-station had been erected only at the request of the locat residents of nearby cotonies to provide reliable and quality power, the writ petition is dismissed since the same is devoid of merits. However, there shafl be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶51

To,

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

-/SD/-V,KAVITHA ASS NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

¶54

One CC to Sri CH V-. prasad.Bab-u, Advocate {OPUCI ror Enersy, Hish Gfi #itJdi"t;or'r"tansana, at , Iffifr";l",oGP 9. 9n.^{CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy(SC} for TSTRANS, p," o ri, (ii ilffi ;,"dcH tfi?J8Bffil i:^gff 35 $t,Slplirl L'" rt

li (

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112024

ORDER

WP.No.12914 of 2O17

C
o IHE S
J
f
o
t 2E ,tui T,zi C-
+
t
Sn416r-r€ ol

¶61

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

RA
gcof
fr-"

Venkateswarlu a v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Venkateswarlu a v. State of Telangana

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

M/s Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Donda Bhasker Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

M/s Sri Uma Maheshwara Paper Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Smt. Bantu Lakshmi Vs The A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited

K.Premalatha, W/O K.Venkateshwarlu, Vs The state of Telangana, Through its Principal Secretary

A. Srinivasa Rao Vs The Executive Engineer Civil (Oandm)