Dismissed

Donda Bhasker v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024WP/1544/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the issuance of a new electricity meter for property under dispute. Due to pending civil suits establishing title and possession, the Court declined the direction to cancel the meter, finding no interim relief merited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to cancel the electricity meter USC No.113438669 denied; writ petition dismissed without costs.

Donda Bhasker Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s21

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1544 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Donda Bhasker, S/o. D. Krishnaiah, Aged About 47 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H.No.4-41-23814, Plot No.227,Papireddy Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana,, Rep. by its Chairman and lvtanaging Director, Having its Corporate Office at 6'150^N/int Colnpound, Hyderabad-63.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, Central Secretariat, TSSPDCL, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Assistant Engineer, TSSPDCL, KPHB Phase-Hl, Kukatpally^Division, Kukatpally Mandal, Mechel-Malkajglri District-72.

¶14

The Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Distribution Corporation Ltd., Vidyut Soudha Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt Bhavanam Samrajyam, W/o. Nagireddy, Aged About- 62^{years, Occ-} House wife, Rio. H.No. 74-35, Ferozguda, Bowepally, Secunderabad.

¶16

,....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents,^{in not taking} any action upon the Petitioners Complaint dated.13l12l2O23 and^not cancelling the new electricity Meter vide bearing USC No.113438669^{which is allottedto the} Respondent No.5 in^pendency of the Civil Suit and^{granted status quo Orderin} l.A. No. 68412021 in O.S. No. 92912o21(new 0.S.No.884/2022)^{passedbv the}

¶18

Honourable A.dl. Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Order dated..dated.'18-11- 2021 for the Schedure of property bearing House Door No.5533/v/60' Situated at Vignanapuri corony, Aflwin Kukatpary Vilage and Mandar, Medchel-Malkajoiri District is iflegar, arbitrary, contrary to raw and viorative of Principles or Naturar Justice offending my rights under Articre 14, 1g, 21,3ooA or the constitution )f rndia and consequentry direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners Repres entation dated. 1 3/ 1 212023.

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition unoer section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Responcents No.01 to 04, to cancel the new erectricity meter vide USC No.51 13438669 0i' the Sth Respondent for the schedure o-f properti- bearing House Door No.{;- 533/v/60, situated at Vignanapuri corony, Arwin Kukatpary Village and Manclar. Med cher- tr/a rkajg iri District in pending disposar of the main writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MALLELA BHASKAR

¶22

!9y11el^{tor the RespondentNos.1 to 4 : SRt} R.V|NOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI JANARDHAN REDDY KOTHA

¶24

The Court made thr: following ORDER

¶25

HON,BLE MRS^{JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶26

WRIT PETITION^{No.1544 of 2O24}

¶27

oRoER:

¶28

Heard Sri Mallela^{Bhaskar,learned counsel appearing} on behalf of the Petitioner,^Sri R. vanod Reddy, learned on behalf of appearang Standing Counsel^{for TSSPDCL,} respondent Nos.l^{to 4 and Sri} Janardhaⁿ Reddy Kotha, learned counsel^{appearing on behalf of respondent No's'}

¶29

2. The itio r d c se ln

¶30

under:

¶31

"...to issue a^{Writ, order or direction more particularly one} in the nature of^{Writ of Mandamus,declaring the action of} the Respondents^{in not taking any action uponthe} Petitioner's Complaint^{dated13.12'2023 and not cancelling} the new electricity^{Meter videbearingUSC No'113438669} which is allotted^{to the Respondent No'5 in pendencyoF} the Civil Suit^{and granted'status quo'Orderin I'A'No'684} of 2o2t^{in o.s.No.929 of 2o2l (new o.s.No'884of 2022)} passed by the Honourable^{Addl' Junior CivilJudge} Cyberabad at^{Kukatpally,Order dated 18'11'2021for the} Schedule of^{Property bearing House Door No'5533/V/60'} Situated at^{Vignanapuri Colony,Allwin Kukatpally Village} and Mandal,^{Medchel-MalkajgiriDistrict, isillegal'} arbitrary.^{contraryto law and violativeof Principlesof} Natural Justice^{offendingmy rightsunder Article 14' 19'} 21, 3004 of the^{Consequently of India and consequently} direct the^{Respondentstoconsiderthe Petitioner's} Representation^{dated 13 -12'2023 and passsuch other} order or^{ordersas this Hon'ble Court may deern fit and} proper in the circumstances^{of the case'"}

¶32

¶33

The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner purchased prc,perty bearing Door No.5-533/V/60 admeasuring 300 sq. yards in Survey No.44Z, 444, 445, 44g and 449, situated at Vignanapuri C,tlony, Allwin Kukatpally Village and Mandal, Medchal_ Malkajgiri Dirstrict, through a registered sale deed dated LL.11.202t. tlowever, after conducting a Survey, the Tahsildar confirmed the actual area to be only 260 Square yards. The petitioner has been in possession of the property, since the purchase anrJ has been regularly paying electricity bills for an electricity (:onnection issued in his name,^-,yrder USC No.113.+04419. Subsequently, respondent No.5 started to unlawfully interfere with the possession of the petitioner.s property and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.929 ot 2O2t before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kul<atpally and "status euo,, order was granted. Despite the status quo order, respondent No.5 obtained a new electricity meter vide U:;(l No.113438669 for the same property, violating the Court order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner subsequently filed a Writ Pr:tition No.30196 of 2O23 seeking to replace the new meter with th: original one, and this Court vde order dated 74.11.2023 a towed the writ petition. The petitioner also made a complaint datecr 13.12.2021to the respondent authorities regarding

-l

'(^''

the issuance^{of illegalmeter' but no action has been taken '} Aggrieved^{by the same,the presentwrit petition is filed'}

¶38

4 The limited^{relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present} is a direction^{to the official respondents herein to} writ Petition consider^the representation^{of the petitionerdated L3'12'2023} pertaining to^{the cancellationof the Electricity Meter v'?e bearing} USC^{No.113438669 of respondentNo'5 herein'}

¶39

Sri R.^{Vinod Reddy, learnedStanding Counselfor TSSPDCL'} appearing^{on behalf of respondent Nos'1to 4 submits that Civil Suit.} vlde O.S.No.8^{84 of 2O23is pending and therefore'the respondent-} Corporation^{at this stage cannot initiate cancellation of the} Electricity^{Meter vide bearing USC No'113438669of respondent} No.5^herein.

¶40

e 6 Th u ffi v 7 a r r n 5 o th^e id co nter ffidavita^se r e u der:

¶41

7 I submit^{that I havebrought a suit for declaration} and^perpetual injunction^{against the writ petitioner} herein and^one B Dhana^{Laxmi @ Laxmi before the} learned^{SeniorCivil Judge' atKukatpally vide} O.S.No.1448^{of 2021 in respect of plot bearingNo'60}

¶42

¶43

¶44

admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.447lA, situated at Vignanpuri, Kukatpally Village and Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District bounded by North: plot No.59, Sourt:33 feet vide road, East:4o feet wide road and West: Plot No.47 and the same is pending and I have filed Ad-interim petition vde I.A.No.1032 of 2O2L in O.S.No. L44B of 2027 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Kukatpally and the Hon'ble Court was pleased enough and granted "Status Quo" order on 30.11.2021 in my favour, as on this day, the said order is still subsisting.

¶45

l. submit that I have verified the tifle and possession of my predecessor- in -title of the plot bearing; 60 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.447lA, situated at Vignanpuri, Kukatpally Village and Mandal, MedchalMalkajgir District and I purchased through registered sale deed bearing No.5293 st 2OO2 dated 15.06.2002 for valuable sale consideration and has been enjoyinq the possession as absolute owner and I got regularized my plot vide proceedings No.LRS/5333/C_ L4/WZlGllMCl2008 dated 31.01.2020 and it is pertinent to mention that. my predecessor in title had purchase the suit schedule plot from original owners and possessors namely k. Rajaiah S/o. K. Narsimhulu, through regd. Sale deed bearing document No.2503 of 1988 dated 08.04.1988, this fact is itself is sufficient to prove that, the writ petitioner herein created the sale deed in respect of the same plot in the year 2021.

i I

\ \

I submit^{that Ibeing the absoluteownerand} possessor approached^{theconcernedelectricity} departments^{and obtainedmeterconnection vlZe USC} No.5113438669,^{before sanction the service meter} concerned^{of officersof Electricity departmentverified} the documents^{and order of the Hon'ble Addl' Senior} Civil Judge,^{Kukatpally sanctionedthe electricity meter} and the^{writ petitioner herein knowingly'intentionally} and deliberately^{instead of proceedingwith civil cases} approached^{this Hon'ble Court by way of filing this writ} petition and moreover^{my predecessor-in-title hJd been} No.60 from^19BB in^possesston of the Plot^bearing onwards^and the writ Petitioner by creating^the documents^{has brought a false suit O'S'No'929of 2O2l} (corresponding^{new No'BB4 of 2O22) on the file of} Hon'ble^{Addl. luniorCivil ludge,Kukatpally and the said} suit O.S.No.929^{of 2)zt (correspondingnew No'884 of} 2022) has^{been transferredto the Hon'ble Addl' Senior} Civil Judge,^{Kukatpallyin O'S'No'1448 of 2O2L for irint} disposal,^{as per orders passedin OP'No'35of 2022 on} thefileofHon'bleDistrict-ludge,thepetitionerhereinby suppressing^{all the materialfacts has approached this} Hon'ble^{Court to cancel the electricity meter vlde USC} No.5113438669,^{as such, the petition is withoutany} merits and^{the same is liable to be dismissed'"}

¶53

Learned counsel^{appearingon behalf of respondentNo'5 on} the other^{hand placing reliance on the averments made in the} counter affidavit^{filed on behalf of respondent No'5 and in particular}

l I I i ! I I i i

paragraph Nos.7, g and 9 of the said counter affidavit (referred to and extracted above), contends that the petitioner is not entiUed for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶58

E D H R

¶59

Taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No_S and in particular paragraph Nos.7, g and 9 of the saad counter affidavit (referred to and extracted above), and in view of the pendency of the Suit vide O.S_No.929 of 2O21 and O.S.No.144g ol 2O2t on the file of the Hon,ble Additionat Junior Civil Jrudge, Kukatpally, this Court is not inctined to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition and accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs,

¶60

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ^petition shall also stand closed.

¶61

SD/-N. SRTHARI ASSI ISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶62

FFICER 1. One CC to SRI MALLELA BHASKAR, Advocate lopr rr-r 2. One CC to sRt R.vtNoD RFp^DflS_g.F.otrsrnnr.rddbl Adv,:;ate IopUCt 4. 3 Two One CD Copier;CC to Sf{ JANARDHAN REDDy KOTHA, a0""""t" iopl<;y," ,"' "",

SA GJP +At,.

( I

HIGH COUFIT

DATED:1411t112024

ORDER

WP.No.1544.of 2024

,,.i;..( -4.4 \ ,{E dt t:A
)(- f;(
0 5 ilAn 2025
.?,,,
ri-
.. + - *
(ri .,
".:: --.,... itr,i l:i{;

DISMISSINGi THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

tr<sup>>^'rrt

Donda Bhasker v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Donda Bhasker v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Madhava Rao, Hyderabad and 11 Others Vs Md, Tsspdcl., Vidyutsoudha, Hyd and 3 Others

Zakera Begum, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Ts Limited

M/s. Bharat Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

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

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

Big C Mobiles Private Limited Vs State of Telangana and 4others