Dismissed

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2024WP/13281/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus to declare late payment charges illegal and stay power disconnection pending nullifying an SLP. Counsel represented that existing interim orders rendered further orders unnecessary, an undisputed submission. The court closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition discharged. No order as to costs.

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE^{NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 1 3281 0F 2015}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Dhanalakshmi^{lron lndustries Limited,(service_connectionNo. MDAK-} iii0Eo'ii["p"tiv Vlitige,^{Jinnaram Mandal, iuedak District' TelanganaState'} rep. by its Director, Rajesh^Gupta

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Southern Power^{Distribution Company of Telangana, L!mi!e{'} 1ep'^{by its} Cniiimii ana^{uanigingDirector, MiniCompound, Hyderabad, Telangana} $tate.

¶12

The Superintending^{Engineer, Operation,The SoutlernPower Distribution} c.oir[;fit^{;ii;ranliniliritud,MeilakDistrict, at sangareddvTelansana} State.

¶13

3 The Senior^{Accounts officer,operation,The SouthernPower Distribution} d;p;;y "i^{t;rangin, Limited. Medak District, at Sangareddv, Telangana} State.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

FetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthat.inthe circum$tances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be Pleased} i;ia;r; a writ^{or order of direction more particularlyone in.thenature of writ of} ivrunJi*rr declaring^{the action of the respondents in levyingthe late payment} on the amounts^{which are stayed and subiect matterS.L.P. (Civil) No} "nrig"s \sZiitii|c "r nignry ittegat, arbitrary,^{unjustand nd violativeof the Fundamental} R'ghdt tne^{peti-tionerInder Articles, 14, 19(1Xg),21,265 and 300-4of the} Constitution of^lndia

¶16

A. NO:1O 2015 MP. NO: 17459^{0F 2015}

¶17

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanc€sstated in} the affitivit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedstaythe} [rV ,"0 inL'""rlection^{'of late paymentcharges-} -on.the^{amountswhich are stayed} i#^{.roi."tmatterof s.r_ i. lciviiyNo. 1525i/2014 inctuding the disconnection of} ihe^{petitioner,s powersupply pending disposal of the abovewrit petition}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D V NAGARJUNA BABU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY SC^{FOR TSSPDCL} The Court made the following: ORDER^.

¶20

HON'BLE^{MRSJUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA} w ETITIO N 1 2 1 F2

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjun^{Babu, learnedcounsel} appearing^{on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R'Vinod} Reddy, tearned^{Standing Counsel forTSSPDCL,} appearing^{on behatf of respondentNos'1 to 3'}

¶23

The^{petitionerapproachedthe Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶24

" ... to /ssue^{a writ or order of direction moreparticularly} one in the^{nature of Writ of Mandamus declaringthe} action of the^{respondentsin levying the late payment} charges on the^{amounts which are stayed and subject} matter S.L.P. Civit^{No.15254/2014 as highlyillegal'} arbitrary, unjust^{and violative of the FundamentalRights} of the^{petitionerunder ArtictesU, t9(l)(g), 21, 265 and} 300A of the^{Constitution of India and pass such other} order or orders"

¶25

I I

¶26

When the matter^{is taken up for hearing, itis} represented^{by the learned counsel appearingon behalfof the} petitioner that in^{view of the interim orders of this Court} dated 30.t4.2015^{passed in W.P.M'P'No'17459 of 2015 in} favour of^{the petitioner, no furtherorders are neces*ry'}

¶27

¶28

¶29

The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶30

Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and duly bringing the said submission on record, the writ petition is closed. However, there shail be no order as to costs.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT EGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SEC ON OFFICER

1 One CC to SRI . D V NAGARJUNA bABU Advocate topucl z One CC to SRI R VTNOD REDDY SC FOR TSSPDCL IOPUCI 3 Two CD Copies KKS

¶38

BS Qo-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912024

ORDER

p. THE 5 14
k /a
o
()
00 ilN n$
t,
)t
4rapEl') +

¶43

WP.No.I3281 of 2015

¶44

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7+

¶45

z+ rt 5c*^-r>

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

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

Gurram Vasudeva Reddy Vs Central Electricity Authority

Stambam Khadi Ramesh Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

China Omkar, Vs The State of Telangana

Bachu Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Palepu Hanumantha Rao S/o. Ramaiah, Vs The Telangana Transmission Corporation

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