Disposed

B. Manohar Reddy, Hyderabad v. the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Ltd. Hyd Andano

Telangana HC22 Nov 2024WP/26108/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging illegal disconnection notices, the High Court disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to issue fresh notices to the petitioner regarding specific service connections and pending dues instead of immediate disconnection.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue fresh notices to the petitioner regarding S.C. Nos. F4-18743 and F4-16658 before proceeding with disconnection or recovery.

B. Manohar Reddy, Hyderabad Vs the Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I32s2l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND^{DAY OF NOVEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS^{JUSTICESUREPALLINANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO 26108 0F²⁰⁰⁸

¶8

Between:

¶9

B l,4anohar Reddy^{(Diedas per Lrs PP2 to 5), Sio} !q1q^{B lVluthyam R?ddy,} igeO 65^yert., Occl^{Business,r/o House No. 1-2-605/A/7 to 16 LowerTank} Bund Road, Hyderabad^{- 500 010.}

¶10

B Amulya, W/o. B.N4anohar^{Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o' 1-2-605/AJ9,} Lower Tank Bund,^{HYderabad-80.}

¶11

P.Meena Reddy,^{W/o. P.srinivasaReddy, aged about 46 years, R'io1-2-} 605iA/9, Lower Tank^{Bund,Hyderabad-8O.}

¶12

B.tr,4uthyam Reddy, S/o.^{Late B,Manohat} Eqddy^{aged about 49 years, Rl/o' 1-} 2-605lAl9, Lower Tank^{Bund,Hyderabad-80.}

¶13

B.Preetham Reddy,^{Sio. Late B.fvlanoharRgddy, agedabout45 years, Rl/o1-} 2-605lAl9, Lower Tank^{Bund,Hyderabad-8O.}

¶14

PP2 lo 5 are^{brought on record as LRs of the deceasedpetitioner no'1} is^per C.O. dt.22.11.2024^{in l.A.No.1/2022)}

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

1 The Andhra Pradesh^{Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Rep by} iis fvfaniging Director,^{Offlce at Vidyut} -^{Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad -} s00 004

¶18

2 The Assistant Engineer,^{Electrical Operations,The AndhraPradesh Central} Power Distribution'Corporation^{Ltd. Kavadiguda,Hyderabad}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Arttcle^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or order/s^{more particularlyone in the natureof writ of} irrlandamus declaring^{the notice -cum-disconnectionorder dated 13-11-2008and} 15-1 1-2008 of the second^{respondent,as being illegal, arbitraryand} unco nstitutio nal, and consequently^{direct the 2nd respondent to withdraw the said} notices

¶21

.:. 1:

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008( WPMP. NO: 34162 OF 2008)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{c:r . .lrrstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{m'r; be pleased to direct} the 2nd respondent not to disconnect the^{power supply to t re petitionerservice} connection Nos F4-25043 , F4-25044, F4-25-45, F4-25O4e'.^{I t 25047, F4-25048} F4-22632, F4-22634, F4-20382, F4-20379 and F4-21606,^{p': ding disposal of the} writ petrtion

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI R.VINOD^{REDDI SC FOR TSSPDCL}

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

; l.., -ij , ;.?Grtr,ii '::_

¶28

-7

¶29

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶30

TP NN 1 of

¶31

ORD ER:

¶32

Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned^{counselappearing} on behalf of the^{petitioner, and Sri R.VinodReddy,} learned Standing Counsel^{for TSSPDCL, appearing for} respondent Nos.1 and^2.

¶33

2, The^petationer approached^{the Court seeking} prayer as follows:

¶34

"...to issue a writ or order,^{more particularlyone in} the nature of Writ of^{Mandamus declaring the notice-} cum-disconnection order dated^{13-11-2008and 15-} 11-2008 of the second^{respondentas beingillegal,} arbitrary and unconstitutional^{and consequentlydirect} the 2nd respondent^{to withdrawthe said noticesand} be^pleased to Pass...^".

¶35

It is the case of^{the petitioner that he is the owner of} property bearing^premises Nos.^1-2-605 /A/7^{-to 16, Lower} tank bund road,^{Hyderabad and had been payingpower} consumption charges^{regularly without any due.The2nd} issued notice-cum^{-disconnection order dated} respondent 13.11.2008 and 15.11.2008^{demandingpayment of}

SN. J wPt6t(rs 200 s

Rs,69,419/- and Rs.35,668 respectively, lying ir the name of one Sri S. Ramesh Reddy for the premises be; r ng No. 1-2605/A/2, Lower tank bund road, Hyderabad, wl.r I is neighbour to the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a rei) / to the said notices on 1 B. 1 1 . 2008. Hence, the writ petition .

¶40

PERU ED THE RE CORD

¶41

Sri R .Vinod Reddv. lea rned st ndino I iounsel for TSSPDCL, appearino for resoondent NoS 1 and 2, Dla ces reliance on the averments made in I he counter affid vit filed on behalf of the resDonden t I 2 and in Darti ular the releva nt oortion of oara No.4 j; extracted

¶42

hereunder:

¶43

"...1 submit that since the petitioner hereir s the agreement holder and is in possession r f the property right from the year 1987, the petit r ner is liable to pay the arrears. I submit il-; t the petitioner herein is in possession oF ,t I the premises i.e. from H.No. 1-2-605/A/Z to 6 are utilized by the petitioner herein and one rf tlre premises has been given on lease to the : -eater Family CIub. I submit that the petitioner is jiable to pay the arrears due on the two : ervice

I I

i I I I

S. J \,t,26108 2008

connections^{and thenotice issued bythis} respondent^{is perfectlylegal and void"'}

¶50

Sri^{R.Vinod Reddy, tearned Standing Counselfor} TSSPDCL,^{appearingfor respondent Nos'land 2 submits that} since the^{petitioner herein is the agreementholder and is in} possession of the^{said property right from the year 1987 he} is liable to^{pay the arrears, since HouseNo'1-2-605/A12 lo 16} are utllized^{by the petitioner herein thoughone of the} premises had been^{given to the Greater Family Club' It is} further contended^{by the learnedStanding Counsel appearing} on behalf^{of the respondentsthat petitioners are liable to pay} arrears^{due on the two service connections and hence the} notice had^{been issued by the respondents to rhe petitioner} and the^{same is legaland valid'}

¶51

In view of^{the fact as borne on record that the interim} order^{grantedby this Court on 28'11'2OOB vide W P'M'P' No'} 34162 of^{2008 has beenmadeabsolutevide its orderdated} 24.tt.2OtO^{in w.P.M.P. No. 34162 of 2008 and it has been in} force as on^{date, the learned counselfor the petitiorler} submitsthattherespondentsrnayproceedagainStthe

¶52

¶53

¶54

SN. J ,. P l6I)3 li)03 petitioner by issuing fresh notices in - t event the respondents intend to proceed against th€r )etitioner for recovery. The learned counsel appearing on lehalf of the respondents does not dispute the said subm i1; ion made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on )ehalf of the petitioner.

¶55

Taking into consideration the afores; id facts and circumstances of the case and the avermr: rts made at para No.4 of the counter affidavit filed on rehalf of the respondent No.2 referred to and extracter I above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the r<i;pondents to proceed against the petitionerJby issuing f r )sh notice to the petitioner in respect of S.C. No. F4-18 74j and F416658, in the event respondents intend t r disconnect the said power supply or proceed for recovery in respect of the dues penrling in respect o S.C. No.F4L8743 and F4-16658 pertaining to prot, )rty bearing Number L-2-6O5/A/7 to 16 Lower Tan[: Bund Road, Hyderabad of the petitioner herein. Ac< ordingly the writ petition is disposed of. However, ther e shall be no order as to costs.

-trry'/

S..I

\ l'] l(, lrrS l(X)S

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶61

closed. However, there shall be no order,as to costs.

¶62

SD/. A. SRINIVASA^REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I,4anaging Director,^{Andhra Pradesh Centra} ower Distribution^Ltd., Office at Vidyut^- Soudha

¶67

2 The Assistant Engineer,^{Electncaloperations,The, AndhraPradeshcentral} Power Distribution"Corporation^{Ltd. Kavadiguda,Hyderabad-}

¶68

3 One CC to SRI VIVEK^{JAIN Advocate} [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI R VINOD^{REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL[OPUC]}

¶69

5 Two CD Copies

¶70

KKS GJP Af

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112024

ORDER

WP.No.26108 of 2008

a<br>( (
18 itt Ald .:
t.
\/

¶76

DISPOSING OF TIIE \'RII'PETTTTON

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

1
t'1,/
(

B. Manohar Reddy, Hyderabad v. the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Ltd. Hyd Andano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Manohar Reddy, Hyderabad v. the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Ltd. Hyd Andano

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

M/s. Sai Parenterals Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Sali Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Principal

Ahmed Shujauddin Quadri Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd.Naseeruddin Farooqi Vs B.Venkatesham IAS

K.Sridhar Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Lega Ram Mohan Reddy Vs Manga Laxmi