Disposed

M/s. Leonard Constructions (P) Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024WP/35642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Hyderabad disposed of a writ petition challenging the requirement of an occupancy certificate for releasing power supply. The Court followed prior judgments and directed respondents to supply power pending compliance with conditions. An undertaking to produce the certificate within a prescribed period was mandated.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release power supply by an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate within a prescribed period, subject to terms and conditions.

M/s. Leonard Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

1321s I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35642 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Leonard Constructions (P) Ltd, 2-2-18 Flat No^{202, AcropolisApartment,} Durgabai Deshmukh Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana,^{lndia - 500013.Represented} by its Executive Director Mr. Katineni Rahul Kumar.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary,^Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Telangana. 500 004.

¶12

The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Southem Power Distribution Company of T.S. Limited TSSPDCL, Somajiguda,^Hyderabad.

¶13

The Divisional Engineer,^{(Commerdal) TSSPDCL, 6-1-50, Mint Compound,} Hyderabad. 500 063.

¶14

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority,^{Representedby. Municipal} C6mmissioner, District Commercial Complex Administrative^{Block, Tamaka,} Hyderabad. 500 007.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

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} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly like Writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof Respondent} No. 2 and 3, in insisting the Petitioner to^get occupancy^{certificate from the 4th} Respondent, for release of^power supply to the^{premises Sy.No. 234, Kompally} Villagre, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District as^illegal and^{arbitrary,and} violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia,^{and consequently directthe} Respondent No.2 and 3 to release the electricity^{power supply to the subject}

¶17

¶18

premises, without insisting on producing occupancy certificate immediately from the 4th Respondent.

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition Under Section I 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 and 3 to release the electricity^power supply to the premises Sy.No. 234, Kompally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District, without insisting on producing occupancy certificate from the 4th Respondent immediately, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of^justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI R.VINOD REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD

¶25

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER

¶26

¶27

/,|

¶28

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.35642 of 2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief:

¶31

'. .. fo issue an appropiate Wit order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 & 3 in insisting the Petitioner to get occupancy certificate from the 4th

¶32

respondent, for release of power supplg to the premises 59.No.234, Kompallg Village, Quthbullapur Manda| Medchal Dislrict as illegal and. arbitrary, and uiolatiue of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and ansequentlg direct the Respondent No.2 & 3 to release the electicitA power supplg to the subject premises, utithout insisting on producing ocalpancA certiftcale immed.iatelg from the 4n respondent, and pass.. - "

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energz appearing on behalf of respondent No.l, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 and Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶34

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue

¶35

wP 35642 2024

¶36

¶37

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.26085 of 2018, dated 26.07.2018 and W.P.No.6O3O of 2O2O dated2O.O4.2O2O.

¶38

The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents herein.

¶39

In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the order dated 26.07.2018, passed in W.P.No.26O85 of 2018, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the power supply to the premises of the petitioner, subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the Occupancy Certificate from the concerned Municipal Corporation, within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. Further, this order does not preclude the offrcial respondents from rejecting the application made by the petitioner, if it is found that the subject property is a vacant land and no structure is in existence. There shall be no order as to costs.

t t

wP 35642 2024

Registry is directed to annex a copy of the^order

¶44

dated 26.O7.2018 passed in^W.P.No.26085 of 2018^along

¶45

with this order for ready reference.

¶46

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this

¶47

writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD

¶49

ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE C)pytt

SECfION OFFICER

1' The Principar secretarv- Energy^ Department, secretariat, State of rerangana at Hyderabad. Tetangdna. SOdbO4.

¶54

The Chairman Cum Malqglng Director, Southern power Distribution ^^{9.orp?nyof T.S.LimitediSSpOCL, S"ri;igrda,Ftyderabad.}

¶55

The Divisionar Enoineer (commerdar) TSS'p5al, ojt-so, tr,tint compound, Hyderabad. S00 0-63.

¶56

The Municipal Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, District Commerciai CompleiAamirislrai,ve ebct, f;m;[a, Hyderabad. 500 007.

¶57

Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶58

One CC to SRt RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJ|, Advocate tOpUCl I 9n"^{CCto SRt R.vrNOD REDDY,} novociie icieUcl I 9n"^{CC to SRt V.NARASTMHA} cbuo, Aarotii" fopuct 9. Two CD Two CD CD Copies

¶59

Two CD Two CD CD Copies

SA LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911212024

ORDER

I
cl R THF. S t4
oC
0 0 ,ut zozs
"" rc qF t) i'
it

¶66

WP.No.35642 of 2024

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶68

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶69

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶70

@
t5
I

M/s. Leonard Constructions (P) Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Leonard Constructions (P) Ltd. 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

Pabba Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Dayara Gram Panchayat and Another Vs State of Telangana and 7 Others

T. Narsimhulu Vs The Commandant, Home Guards, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad.

P.Venkateshwarlu Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Karumanchi Sayebu Vs The State of Telangana