A writ petition challenging the non-shifting of electricity lines was listed for hearing. Standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the cause did not survive for adjudication. The court accepted this submission.
Writ petition closed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3300 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 29661 OF 2013
Between:
J.J.llesh @ llaiah, S/o Peddulu, Occ Proprietor, M/s Navatha Bricks Industry, Rl/o H.No. 1-39/D, Shankar Nagar, Siddipet Town and Mandal, MedakDistrict.
...PETITIONER
AND
? The Assistant Divisional Engineer,(Operation), Rural,APCPDCL, Siddipet, District htledak.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedtherewith, theHigh Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actionof the Respondentsin not shiftingof1 No. l-Phase Service of SC.No. 532,Rangadampallyvillage, by erecting0.300 KM LT Line at Survey No. 1050, RangadampallyVillage in Op.SectionSiddipet Rural, Op.Sub-Division Rural, Districtfvledak,despite compliance of all the requirements as demanded by the Respondents,as illegal, arbitrary,unjust, unreasonable and opposed tothe Principlesof Natural Justice besides being contrary provisions of the ElectricityRegulations in vogue and consequently direct the Respondents to completethe entire processof shiftingforthwith'
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 36827 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 15'1 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct the Respondents to complete the entireprocess of shiftingof '1 No.l- Phase Service of SC.No. 532, Rangadampallyvillage, by erecting0.300 KMLT Line at Survey No. 1050, RangadampallyVillage in Op. Section SiddipetRural, Op Sub-Division Rural, DistrictlVledak, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G.ANANDAM
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINODREDDY,SC FOR TSTRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI.IUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.29661 of 2Ol3
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri R.Vinod Reddy learned standing counsel for Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (for short "TSTRANSCO") appearing for respondents submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.
2 Recording the said submission, this writ petition 1S closed as infructuous. No order as to costs
Miscellaneous applications, pending if aly, shall stald
closed.
I
SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII
SECTI N OFFICER
To, '1 . One CC to SRl. G. ANANDAM, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. R. VINOD REDDY ,SC FOR TSTRANSCO tOpUCI 3. Two CD Copies BM GJP
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 310312024
ORDER
WP.No.29661 of 2013
1t"! SiAT 6
or- I'
>i
0 | rnv zlz+ .a
*
oE5p416H?
CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUTCOSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking relief regarding electricity infrastructure shifting survives adjudication due to the cause no longer existing.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
J.J.Ilesh @ Ilaiah
Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Limited
Justice Nagesh Bheemapak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
