Disposed

Nawaz Enterprises, v. The A.P.C.P.D.C.L.

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/27529/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing respondents to receive electricity consumption charges without insisting on additional charges or interest. Respondents' standing counsel stated petitioner had no dues and no additional charges were being insisted upon. Court disposed of the writ petition directing petitioner to pay minimum consumption charges as per bills raised, with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nawaz Enterprises, Vs The A.P.C.P.D.C.L. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 27529 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nawaz Enterprises, Regd. Rep. by its Proprietor, Mohd Nazeeruddin, S/o Mohd Basheeruddin, Aged about 36 yrs, Rio H.No. 1-3-183/40t46t44. Sai NagarColony,Bholakpur,Musheerabad,Hyderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

...,ET,T,ONER

¶12

I, The A.P C P.D.C.L., rep. By its Managing Director. Having office at Ra;bhavan Road, Hyderabad.^'

¶13

2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Gaganpahad, APCPDCL, Having office at Gaganpahad, R.R. District,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petrtion under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in refusing to receive the electricity bill amount relating to service No.340406422, ERO Gaganpahad, R.R. District, in the absence of additional charges/interest amount of Rs 2019 per month, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutiona l. Consequently, this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to receive electrlcity consumptions charges for service NO. 3404 06422, ERO Gaganpahad, R.R. District, subscribed by the petitioner. without insisting on additional charges/interest amount of Rs 2019/- per month

¶16

l.A. NO:1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 34142OF 2013I

¶17

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 pleased to pass an interim direction thereby directing the respondents not to insist on payment of additional charges/interest amount of Rs 2019/- per month while collecting electriciiy consumption charges in respect of service No. 340406422, ERO Gaganpahad, R.R. District, subscribed by the petitioner

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.27529^{of 2O13}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned^{counsel appearang} on behalf of^petitioner and^{Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel for^TS Transco,^{appearing on behalf of} respondent Nos.1 and^2.

¶26

The petitioner approached the Court^{seekingprayeras} under:

¶27

"...to issue an order direction or a writ^{particularly in} the nature of Writ of^{Mandamusdeclaring that the} action of the respondents^{in refusing to receivethe} electricity bill amount^{relating to serviceNo.3404O6422,} ERO Gaganpahad, R.R.^{District in the absenceof} additional charges/interest^{amountof Rs.2019/- per} month, is illegal, arbitrary and^{u nconstitutional.} Consequently this^{Honble Court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{toreceiveelectricity} consumptions charges^{for service No.3404 06422,E?O} Gaganpahad, R.R.^{District subscribedby the petitioner} without insisting on additional^{cha rges/interestamount} of Rs.2019/-^{per month and pass...".}

¶28

'>*' ,.\

¶29

SN. J wP 27,.29 201-l 3. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 upon instructions submits that petitioner had been paying the electricity bill amounts regularly and there are no dues to be paid by the petitioner even as per the Bill dated 02.08.2O24 and further that the respondents are receiving electricity consumption charges from the petitioner as per the electricity consumed by the petitioner and are not insisting any additional ch a rges/interest amount as alleged by the petitioner.

¶30

Taking into consideration the submissions put forth by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 and bringing the said submissions on record and duly considering the interim order dated 27.O9.2OL3 in favour of the petationer, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay the minimum consumption charges as per the bills raised by the respondents regularly, However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

S\J wP 27529^201.1

¶32

_t\

¶33

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

¶34

the Writ Petition^{shall alsostandclosed.}

¶35

SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY// \

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. The Managing Director, .TSPSCDCL., Having office at Raibhavan Road, Hyderabad.

¶39

T6e Assistant Divisronal Engineer.^{Operation Gaganpahad, TSPSCDCL} Havino office at Gaoanoahad, R.R.^District

¶40

one ct to SRI MOHAMMAD^{ADNAN. Advocate} [oPUC] a. One CC to SRl. R VINOD^{REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO)} [OPUC]

¶41

Two CD Copies

¶42

BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

ORDER

( o -IH5 S 14 is
o f:
0 0 JAfi 2025
{+
, r,'l 1F-t-)

¶48

WP.No.27529 of 2013

¶49

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

e)
*(Pf'
LI,
;:r

Nawaz Enterprises, v. The A.P.C.P.D.C.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nawaz Enterprises, v. The A.P.C.P.D.C.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Ramchandar Vs Shri M. Danakishore

Bommadeni Ram Mohan Vs Sri Boora Venkatesham Goud

K. Laxminarayana Vs K. Anjaneyulu

M/s Shivani Engineering Industries Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

K. Manga Vs Smt. Shruti Ojha

Errapati Nagarjuna, Khammam Dt. Vs Chairman and M.D., Apgenco, Hyd and 2 Othrs