Dismissed

Kakani Vinod Kumar, Hyderabad v. Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC23 Sept 2024WP/19375/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a declaration that the respondents' refusal to transfer electricity service connections after a property purchase was illegal. The petitioner failed to appear on the hearing date. The high court dismissed the petition as infructuous since the cause of action was past, without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kakani Vinod Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Chairman and Md… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19375 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kakani Vinod Kumar, S/o. K Venkateshwarlu, aged about 36 years, Occ Architect, r/o. H.No.'1 0-3-789131 A, Vijaynagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hyderabad.

¶12

The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not transferring the service connections SC No.A3-3730 and 43-4317 in respect of premises bearing No.B-267611lclA, Ground and First Floor, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, after the petitioner purchased the property vide sale deed No.'106/2012 dt.O6.O1 .2012 from his vendors as illegal, arbitrary and consequenfly the direct the respondents to restore the power supply by transferring the service in the name of petitioners house property.

¶15

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2013( WPMP. NO: 23691 0F 2013 )

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to restore the power supply to the service connections SC No.A3-3730 and 43-431 7 in respect of premises bearing No.B-2- 6761 1l ClA, Ground and First Floor, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA} WRIT PETITIoN^{No.1937s oF} 013

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri K'^{Bheema Rao, learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner and Sri R' Vinod} Reddy, tearned^{Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO,} appearing on behalf^{of respondentNos' 1 and 2'}

¶23

The^{petitionerapproached the Courtseeking} prayer as under:

¶24

" ...to issue writ order^{or direction particularly one in} the nature of^Writ of^{Mandamus declaringthe action} of the respondents^{in not transferringthe service} connections SC^{No. A3-3730and A3-4317 in respect} of^premises bearing^{No.B-2-676l1/C/A, Ground and} ' First Floor Road No' 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad after the^{petitioner purchased the property vide sale} deed No.106 l2OI2^{dt O6-01-2012 from his vendors} as illegal, arbitrary^{and consequently directthe} respondents to^{restore the power supply by} transferring the^{service in the name of petitioners} house ProPertY and Pass...".

¶25

I \

¶26

On 18.09.2024^{therewas no representationon behalf of} the petitioner when the^{case was called.Though the matteris}

<br>

)

wP_19375,2013 listed under the caPtion,^'For Dismissal' today i.e. on 23.09.2024 there is no^{representation} on^{behalf of the} petitioner when the case is called.

¶31

It is represented by Sri R.^{Vinod Reddy,learned} Standing Counsel for^{TSTRANSCO,appearing on behalf of} respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the^{cause of action in the} present writ petition does not survive for adjudication^any mo re.

¶32

Bringing the said submission of the^learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf^ofthe respondents on record, the Writ Petition^{is dismissedas} infructuous. However, there shall be^{no order as to} costs,

¶33

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

¶34

in the Writ Petition shall also stand^closed.

¶35

S D/- K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To I One CC to SRI^{K.BHEEMA RAO' Advocate[O-PUC]} .^. 2 5.nE;E i"^{5Hiri.Vir.r-oonEoo1, Sc non isrRANsco [oPUC]} e Two CD CoPies

PSK. \ GJP

kP. --P

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912024

ORDER

WP.No.19375 of 2013

i$E Sra
(
($t'
oo 11 FIB 2025
za
t t
cO
:)ATCtt

¶45

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶46

@
&

Kakani Vinod Kumar, Hyderabad v. Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kakani Vinod Kumar, Hyderabad v. Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siluveru Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. G. Ravichandar Vs Dr. J. Venkati

Gudise Neelamma, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Narige Bothaiah, Adilabad Dist. Vs the State of Ts.,Social Welfare,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

Granite Mart Ltd., Vs Southren Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Granite Mart Ltd., Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited