The High Court held that the cause of action in the writ petition ceased to exist and thus the petition did not survive for adjudication. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-:::_-,,\
132s2 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURIH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1727'l OF 2009
Between:
M/s. Sheethal Shipping And Metal Processors Ltd., Survey No. 263, Parigi Road, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, Rep. by its I\4. D. Shamsundar Agarwal.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the letter No. SE/OP/MBNR/SAO/HT/D.No. 14612009, dated 22-7 -2009 of the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust void and contrary to section 56 of the Electricity Act 203 and consequently set-aside the same.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 22645 OF 2009)
Petition under Section'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to disconnect the petitioners power supply pursuant to the
il
letter No. SE/OP/MBNR/SAO/HT/D.No.146t2OOg'dated 22-7-2009 of the 2nd respondentpending clisposal of the aboveWrit Petition'
Counsel for thePelitioner: SRI D'V'NAGARJUNA'BABU
counserrortheRespondenrsNo.lto3,...B,."aHTr?[iT,S"tBl,
The Court madethe following:ORDER
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.17271of 2OO9 ORDER:
It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the cause of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication/ any more. 2. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not disputed by Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
As a sequel, the miscellaneouspetitions, if any,pending
in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
To,
SD/. P. PADMANABHAREDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 0
'1 . One CC to SRI D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU, Advocate' [OPUC] 2. One CC to SR]O.MANOHAR REDDY, (SCFOR APTRANSCO)tOPUCl 3. Two CDCoPies.
BSK k-
HIGH COURT
DATED:2410912024
ORDER
WP.No.17271 of 2009
,<
o
16 APit 20[ o2
t t
SPA
DlsMlsslNG THE wRlr PETlrloNAS:rturpucruous WITHOUT COSTS
.eA .0Y 6 S.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition surmives for adjudication when the right to file the petition no longer exists
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Sheethal Shipping And Metal Processors Ltd.
The Central Power Distribution Company of AP Limited
The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P- Limited
The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
SUREPALLI NANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
