Zakera Begum, v. The Central Power Distribution Company of Ts Limited

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024WP/18286/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana closed Writ Petition No. 18286 of 2017 regarding the removal of electricity connection. Relying on counsel's submission that power was restored and correspondence from Respondent No. 3, the court held the writ petition closed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions also closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition also closed.

Zakera Begum, Vs The Central Power… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANOA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18286 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Zakeru Begum, {/o. Ahmed Hussain, aged 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-5-6i1 1, 2'" Floor, Krishna Colony, Musheerabad Hyderabad 500 045

¶9

Akber Hussain, S/o Ahmed Hussain, aged 24 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-5-6/1 1 , 2"" Floor, Krishna Colony, lvlusheerabad Hyderabad 500 045

¶10

AND

¶11

...PET|T|ONERS

¶12

'1 . The Central Power Distribution Company of TS Limited, Rep by its Superintending Engineer, Operation RR Circle, East, Uppal X Roads, Uppal Secunderabad

¶13

The Assistant Engineer (Operation), TSCPDCL, Sub Division, 33i1 1 KV Sub Station Road No.8, lDA, Nacharam, Uppal mandal Medchal District

¶14

The Assistant Divisional Engflneer (Operation), TSCPDCL, Sub Division, 33111 KV Sub Station Road No.8, lDA, Nacharam, Uppal mandal Medchal District

¶15

The Divisional Engineer Electrical Opeation, TSCPDCL, Habiguda, Hyderabad

¶16

Kumari V.Vijaya Laxmi, D/o. Late V. Narasimha Reddy, aged major R:io. H No.7-411 Opp. ESI Hospital, Nacharam Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad

¶17

Kumari V.Uma Rani, Dio. Late V. Narasimha Reddy, aged major Rl/o. H No. 7-411 Opp. ESI Hospital, Nacharam Ranga Reddy Dstrict, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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. Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents^'t to 4 in removing the electricity connection to the petitioners three mulgi bearing Municipal House No. 7-411 , Opp. EA Hospital, Nacharam, Hyderabad (RR District) without following due process of law is as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural

¶20

justice and also vioration of Articles 14, 1 9 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore the power supply scno120111701 anc! scno i201056g0 to the petitioners murgi immediatery in the interest of justice

¶21

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPM P. NO: 2231 7 0F 20171

¶22

Petition under 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 respondents 1 to 4 to restore the power suppry to the petitioners three mulgies bearing Nc'. r411, opp. ES I Hospitar, Nacharam, Hyderabad (RR District), pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRl. K. RAVIKANTH

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY

¶25

S.C. FOR TSTRANSCO

¶26

counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRr J. vENUcopALA cHARy The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BLE MRS SUREPALLI NANDA 'USTICE

¶28

WRIT PJTITION No.18286 ot 2OL7

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri K. Ravi Kanth, learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioners, Sri R. Vinod} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for^TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondent .Nos.1^{to 4 and} Sri J. Venugopala Chary, learned counsel^appearingon behalf of respondent Nos.5 and^6.

¶31

The petitioners approached the^{Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶32

"...to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{respondents1 to 4 in} removing the electricity connection to^the petitioners three mulgi bearing Municipal House^No 7-4lL Opp ESI Hospital Nacharam^Hyderabad(RR District) without following due^{processof law is} illegal arbitrary and against^{the principlesof natural} justice and also violation of Articles L4, 19 and 2l of the Constitution of I.ndia^{and consequentlydirect} the respondents 1 to 4 to^{restorethe power supply} S.No.1201-11701 and^{120105680to the petitioners} mulgi immediateiy in^{the interest of justice and to}

¶33

¶34

pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of the ce se. "

¶35

The coun ter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and the relevant oaraqra oh No.2 is extracted hereu nder:

¶36

"2. It is submitted that as per the orders of the Honourable Court the service connections have been restored by fixinq the meters and there are no arrears tn respect of the said connections. These respondents are ready _o comply with any orders of this Honourable Court irt respect ot the matter in dispute in the present writ pet ition. "

¶37

Sri R Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSIRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, placing reliance on the averments made at paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit Filed on behalf of respondent No.3 contends that in pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dated 08.06,.2017 passed in W.p.No.18286 of ZOL7, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 had restored the power supply of the petitioners.

¶38

¶39

Taking^{into consideration the submission made by} Sri R.^{vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counselfor} TSTRANSCO,^{appearingon behalf of respondentNos'1} to4anddulyconsideringtheparagraphNo'2ofthe counteraffidavitfiledbytherespondentNo.3(referred to and^{extracted above), the Writ Petition is closed.}

¶40

However,^{there shall be no order as to costs'}

¶41

As a sequel,^{the miscellaneous petitions'if any' pending}

¶42

in the^{Writ Petition shall alsostandclosed'}

SdI. K.^AMMAJI

ASSISTANTFEGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECNON^OFFICER

To,

2 ?, Bffi^{EE i, :ii I Wffii#$]![nT":4[.".,1Hlt i!ru13tu cr} 4 Two CD^CoPies

BM MP

HIGH COURT

DATED:12 t11t2024

.3 rd E srArri
o
e
3 2o?5
I) $?,JIN
t
t a
l)Fsr 5iC\<br>

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.18286 of 2O1t

¶56

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS (/a s'I I /ro

Zakera Begum, v. The Central Power Distribution Company of Ts Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakera Begum, v. The Central Power Distribution Company of Ts Limited

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

Syed Lateef Ali Quadri Vs State of Telangana

Smt. P. Atchamma Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Deekonda Sunitha, Vs State of Telangana

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

M/s. Bharat Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Mukundlal Agarwal Vs The Principle Secretary (Revenue)