Dismissed

Agiru Narender Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024WP/21743/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the non-issue of electricity service connections, the High Court considered the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the TSSPDCL, who submitted that the connection had already been released pursuant to earlier interim orders. The Court closed the writ petition without imposing any costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; no direction issued to respondent as the matter was already resolved by release of connection pursuant to earlier orders.

Agiru Narender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O:21743^{OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aoiru Narender Kumar,^{Son of A.NarasimhaSwamy' Aged about 56-years'} Oic. Business. Resident of^{H.No.2-54, Shakhapur Post and Village,Pangal} Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

2: V. Varshini Reddy, D/o.V.Upender^{Reddy,Aged about24 yea$,Resident of} H.No.11-'13-786, iioad^{No.2, Green Hills Colohy,Saroornagar, Hyderabad}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principle Secretary, Energy} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Telangana State Southern^{Power DistributionCorporation Ltd,} Represent6d by its Divisional^{Engineer,Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District}

¶14

3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer,^{Telangana State-Southern Power} Distribution Corporation Ltd-^{Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶15

4 The Assistant Engrneer,^{TelanganaStale Southern Power Distribution} Corporation Ltd., Hayathnagar,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶16

The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar^{Mandat, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Arlicle^{226 of the constitution bf lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmaybe} pleased to issue a writ, order^{or direction, more particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the 4th respondentin not issuingNew} Electricity Service^{connectionsin favour of petitioners basingon the letterof 5th} respondenl i.e., Letter^{No.8/367/2014dated 12.09.2022isarbilrary, illegalbesides} no sanction of authority^{and consequently directthe 4th respondentto issueNew} Electricity service^{connectionsin favour of the petitionerswithout reference to the} said letter in^{plots bearing Nos.129 and 93 situated in Sy No 308 Bagh}

¶19

Hayathnagar Village^{andMandal, Ranga Reddy Districtand to releaseservice} connection to the^{1st petitionervide his ApplicationNo.NR90623873253 dated} 25.04.2023 and receive^{application and release new service connection to the 2nd} petitioner plot.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the Highcourtmay be pleased to direct} the 4th respondent^{to issue New Electricity service connectionto the petitioners} plots bearing Nos.1 29 and 93 situated^{in Sy.No.308 Bagh Hayathnagar Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District,^{pending disposal of the Writ Petition.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI P. RAVISHANKER}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2to 4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY,} SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶26

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶27

HON'BLE^{MRS IUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA} w I N 2t⁴³ F o

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri^{P.Ravi Shanker,learned counselappearingon} behalf of the^{petitioners, learned Assistant Government} Pleader for^{Energyappearing on behalfof the respondent} No.1, Sri^{R.vinodReddy,learned Standing Counsel for} TGSPDCL,^{appearingon behalfof the respondent Nos'2 to 4} and the^{learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing} on behalf^{of the resPondentNo'5'}

¶30

h e r r 2 n

¶31

under:

¶32

"...to issue a^{Writ, orderor direction more particularly}

¶33

one in the^{nature of Writof Mandamus declaringthe action of} the 4th^resPondent in not issuing^{New Electricity Service} Connections^{in favo} ur of^{petitionersbasing on the letter of 5h} tter No.8/367/2O14^{dated t2'O9'2022is}

¶34

respondent^i.e.,Le arbitrary,^{illegal.besides} no sanction of^authoritYand 4th respondent to^{issue New}

¶35

consequentlY^{direct the} Electricity^{Service Connectionsin favour of the petitioners} without^{reference to the said letter in plots bearing Nos'129} andg3SituatedinSy.No.30sBaghHayathnagarVillageand Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District and toreleaseservice} connectiontothel'tpetitionervidehisApplicationNo. NR9O623873253^{dated25 'O4 '2023 and receiveapplication}

¶36

¶37

and release new service connection to the 2nd petitioner plot and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶38

3, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSpDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 brings on record the Letter dated 13.09.2023 of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Hayathnagar, addressed to the Divisional Engineer Operation, TSSPDCL, Saroornagar.

¶39

A bare perusal of the said letter dated t3.09.2O23 indicates that in pursuance to the orders of this Court dated 17.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21743 of 2O23, the service connection is released in favour of the petitioners bearing SC No.6205 00199 on 07.09.2023.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the same may be brought on record and the writ petition may be closed.

¶41

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶42

Bringing the said letter dated 13.O9.2023 of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, TSSPDCL,

¶43

¶44

i li

¶45

Hayathnagar^{addressed to the Divisional Engineer Operation'} TSSPDCL, Saroornagar^{and also the submissions of the} learned Counsel^{appearing on behalf of the petitionerduly}

¶46

on record, the^{writ petition is closed'However,there shall}

¶47

be no order^{as to costs.}

¶48

As a sequel,^{themiscellaneouspetitions,} ift

¶49

any,^{pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed'}

¶50

SD/. P. PADMANABHA EDDY ASSISTANT^REGSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One^CC to^{Sri P. RaviShanker, Advocate {OPUCI} i. i;; 6d; t"-cp^{io|. en"rg;'iighcourttor the State of Telangana'at} Hvderabad [OUT] 3. i'i,;"bCi;^{tn" cp tot Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana' at} 4. Hvderabad[OUT]^'Ci;;CC 6'5rl^{n' vinooReddv,SC for TGSPDCL[oPUC]}

¶55

Two CD^CoPies TJ GJP Q*

HIGH COURT

DATED:¹ 311212024

ORDER

WP.No.21743 ot 2023

-{ : /', <br>t
c
f
J 0o il;r luiS
:,
t
DEspa.rci r':li\ :r'

¶61

CLOSING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+ ,\9 )/ tf

¶62

1ce?er.

Agiru Narender Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agiru Narender Kumar v. The State 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

M/s. Icsa(India ) Limited Vs The Chief General Manager (Project Andrac)

Aishwarya Poultry Farm Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Arjula Indrasena Reddy Vs Damera Thamas

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its

Smt. L. Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, IAS

Smt. Kalvakuntla Vijitha Rao Vs The State of Telangana