Disposed

Yachamaneni Chandra Mohan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2024WP/30531/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus order for electricity connection. Relying on a prior order, the Court directed the petitioner to apply fresh within two weeks, with respondents to process it promptly subject to statutory payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh application within two weeks; Respondents directed to consider the application expeditiously and grant the connection subject to payment.

Yachamaneni Chandra Mohan Rao Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30531 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yachamaneni Chandra Mohan Rao, Sio. Y. Venkateshwar Rao, Age 50 yrs Occ Business,

¶9

Gourineni Pavani, Wo. G. Ramkishan Rao, Age 37 yrs, Occ Housewife,

¶10

Vennamaneni Kavitha, Wo. P. Sunil Kumar, Age 44 yrs, Occ Business,

¶11

Gourineni Vinatha, Wo. G- Venkateshwar Rao, Age 45 yrs, Occ Housewife,

¶12

Gourineni Venugopal Rao, S/o. G. Kamalakar Rao, Age 48 yrs, Occ Private Employee,

¶13

All are Rl/o. Plot No. 47lB and 47lD, Survey No. 11/2 and 11l3, Khanamet (V), Serilingampally (M) under GHMC, Ranga Reddy District, T. S.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Power and Energy Department Secretariat, Hyderabad- 5OOO22.

¶17

2 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman- cum- Managing Director.

¶18

3 Chief General Manager commercial lVlint Compound TGSPDCL, Hyderabad

¶19

4 The Superintending Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶20

5 The Divisional Engineer, Operation KondapurT G S P D C L

¶21

6 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation KondapurT G S P D C L

¶22

7 The Assistant Engineer, SE/OP/GHYD East AE OP Allapur TGSPDCL

¶23

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 20, Rep. by its Commissioner. Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in} the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the Respondents 2 to 7 in} not receiving the application form and^{release the individualService Connection to} the petrtioner, the Plot No. 47lB and^{47|D,in Survey No. 1112 and11/3,} admeasuring 569 sq.^yards, situated at^{Khanamet (V), Serilingampally(M) under} GHMC, Ranga Reddy District, T. S. , bounded^{by North30 Feet Wide Road South} Plot No. 48 and 48/A East Plot^{No. 47lA West 60 Feet Wide Road.} ,^{as illegal,} null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the^{respondents to receive application} and to release the individual service^{connectionwithout being influencedby the} instructions of the 8th respondent.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased 1o} direct the Respondents 2lo 7 lo receive the application and release the^individual service connection to the^petitioner, the Plot No. 47lB and 47|D, in Survey^No. 1112 and 1113, ad measuring 569 sq.^yards, situated at Khanamet^(V), Serilingampally (lV) under GHIVC, Ranga Reddy District, T. S. , bounded by North 30 Feet Wide Road South Plot No. 48 and 4BlA East Plot No. 47lA West 60 Feet Wide Road.

¶30

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SMT THAKUR ROOPA SINGH

¶31

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.2to7 : SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

¶34

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶35

WRIT PETITIO N No.3O531 ot 2024

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard Smt. Thakur Roopa Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 7 and Sri M.A.K. Mukeed, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing on behalf of respondent No.8.

¶38

2, The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶39

"...to issue an appropriate Writ order or directlon more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 7 in not receiving the application form and release the individual service connection to the petitioner, the Plot No.47lB & 47/D in Survey Nos. 1U2 and Ll/3, admeasuiing 569 sq. yards, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State., bounded by North: 30'feet Wide Road; South: Plot No. 48 & 48/A; East: Plot No. 47/A; West: 60' Feet Wide Road as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently

SN, J \P 30il I 2024

direct the respondents to receive application and to release the individual service connection without being influenced by the instructions of the 8th respondent and to pass such other order or orders..."

¶44

It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 7 that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 17.10.2024 passed in W.P. No.28672 ot 2024, hence, the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶45

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the learned counsel on record and for the reasons alike in the above referred order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28672 oJ 2024 dated I7.LO.2O24, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage in similar lines, directing the petitaoner to make a fresh application to the respondents, within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on receapt of such application, the

¶46

¶47

SN, J wp 1053 t 202,1

¶48

respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance to law expeditiousty, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks therefrom and grant necessary electricity connection as sought for by the petitioner to the subject premises of the petitioner,s Plot No.47lB & 47/D, admeasuring 569 sq. yards in Survey Nos. 1112 and 1L/3, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal/ Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, subject to the petitioner making necessary payment, as stipulated under the Electricity Act, 2OO3.

¶49

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

,,rRuEcopy,,^:rTfJ$: ro,

¶51

'1. The principal Secretr

¶52

^ z^Jglary.ana, r ne uhairman-^{nyoerao#sB1Y2i.^"0} cum-.Managing Director,^{Enersv Department secretariat,state} Terangana State Southern power^of ,ii3|ili*"33H"%i'.,m'""+.i:m*lr#"flt%,"yfl ;,5';,"'f s3,,,".

¶53

i ffiNgH+N#P+r,'','r*: ;

¶54

3^fi#":r-i;r"tl'it$s['fi il:,,APFuxli'",,"nanaroUr] Ii,ffiEE*ffi

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0411112024

CC TODAY

-'::-r.i-'- :1_-.
:,,i.,'
0 B ilhi ?t[q.
ii
,

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.30531 of 2024

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

o v

Yachamaneni Chandra Mohan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yachamaneni Chandra Mohan Rao 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Surya Jyorthi Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of

Gandala Parushuram Vs Sri Narsaiya

M/s. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of

Ramulu Jarupula Vs The State of Telangana

Bhattu Venkanna Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Gouse Vs The State represented by Central Power