Disposed

Vadla Jeetha Chary v. The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary

Telangana HC11 Sept 2024WP/40880/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged disconnection of his power supply pursuant to a provisional assessment notice for alleged theft of energy. Respondents stated the petitioner had paid the full assessed amount and the service was reconnected. The Court closed the writ petition as the cause of action no longer survived, with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; miscellaneous petitions pending also stood closed.

Vadla Jeetha Chary Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 40880 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vadla Jeetha Chary, S/o late V Brahmaiah Chary aged 51^years, occ agriculture r/o House no. 3-131 , near Ambedkar statue Nizampet^village, Qutubullapur mandal Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

-1 . The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Transco, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Mint compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Chairman and Managing.Director

¶13

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited at Miyapur, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in disconnecting power supply to the Service Connection no. 00415 1363'1 at Nizampet village, in the name of the petitioner, under Kukatpally Electricity Revenue Office in Bachupally section of the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, pursuant to provisional assessment notice vide letter no. ADE/OP/MYP/F.no.55/D.no. 1912 dated 7-11-2015 issued by the third respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents to restore power supply

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 52787 OF 2015)

¶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 issue interim directions to the respondents to restore^power supply to the Service Connection no. 00415 13631 at Nizampet village, in the name of the petitioner, under Kukatpally Electricity Revenue Office in Bachupally section of the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited,^pending disposal of the Writ Petition;

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VIVEK JAIN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: R VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TS TRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.4O88O OF 2015

¶22

ORDE R:

¶23

Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel'for TS Transco, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶25

"...to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in disconnecting power supply to the Service Connection No.00415 13631 at Nizampet village in the name of the petitioner under Kukatpally Electricity Revenue Office in Bachupally section of the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited pursuant to provisional assessment notice vide letter No.ADE/OPIMYP/F. No. 55/D No.1912 dated 7-LL-2O75 issued by the third respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondents to restore power supply and be pleased to pass... ".

¶26

¶27

wP 40880 20 15

¶28

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 placing reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, in particular para Nos.3 to 6, submits that since the petitioner paid the entire amount, the cause of action does not survive. The relevant para Nos. 3 to 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3.d respondent is extracted hereunder:

¶29

*3. It is submitted that as the petitioner has committed theft of energy a provisional assessment notice dated 07-11-2015 for Rs.4,67,a57/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has paid 50o/o of the assessed amount on 22-Q7-2O16 and the service was reconnected.

¶30

It is submitted that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under section 135 of Electricity Act 2O03 for theft of energy. Specia{ Courts have been constituted to fix the Civil Liability ln cases of theft. The case of the petitioner has to be referred to the Special Court and the Civil Liability shall be assessed under section 154 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003.

¶31

¶32

wP 40880 20ls

¶33

It is submitted that the oetitioner has^paid the balance 50o/o of the amount L 3 ooo 7 Rs. 5O,OOO/- on 27-LO-2O 7 and Rs.53.928/- on 22-11-20L7 there are no amounts due from the oetitioner in respect of the demand notice da O7-11-2O15 and the matter need not be referred to the so cial court.

¶34

ft is submitted that as oetitioner oaid the entire amount, the ca use of action does not survive and the writ oetition mav be dismissed on the above mention oround".

¶35

Taking into considerataon the submissions put forth by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for TS Transco appearing on behalf of respondent^Nos.1 to 3 and duly considering the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and in particular para Nos.3 to 6^(referred to and extracted above), the writ^petition is closed.^There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

I I I i

¶37

4 wP-40880_20 r5 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶38

¶39

SD/. T.JA ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPY// / SE OFFICER / / r", 1. One CC to SRl. VIVEK JAIN Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. R VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TS TRANSCO) Advocate loPUcI 3. Two CD Copies ?k 4. One Spare Copy

MMT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110912024

lHE S 14
$f'
30 DEt :/02l
o
i
F,!.TCH
ORDER

¶44

WP.No.40880 of 2015

¶45

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITTON

¶46

WITHOUT COSTS ?14 l2-- )r4 {cY*>

Vadla Jeetha Chary v. The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadla Jeetha Chary v. The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary

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

Manga Somaraju Vs The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare)

S.Tirupathaiah, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

Jama Susheela Vs The State of Telangana

Oddepalli Babu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Rtss Man Power Solutions, Vs Telangana State Tribal Welfare Residential Educational

Sherla Sharida, Vs The State of Telengana