Disposed

G Muralidar v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Energy,Hyd,and Anot

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024WP/6257/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a mandamus directing release of power supply to the petitioner's building without insisting on an occupancy certificate. Both counsel represented that the interim order dated 22.02.2017 in WPMP No. 7662 of 2017 subsists and no further orders were necessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed in view of the existing interim order dated 22.02.2017; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

G Muralidar Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Energy,Hyd,and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6257 oF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

fi"yiriilXtliff; frf#:i:';^{oned about 42 vears, R/o protNo, 81/10,} Sy

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 Secreta ry' Power a nd Enersv Depa rtment secretariat, ,?33;31.t: 5Jil8'ii', 2 Southern Power Distribut,onf^gl?qrly of Telangana Ltd. Rep . by its Director Uperations At Ameerpet, HyoeraDad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit lf"a if.,"r"lin, the High Court may be lllaseo^{t.o.i:.ry" an appropriatewrit, oroeior;;;;;il} more particutarty one in the nature of writ of Mandamus. decraring re iction or the Respondents in not ffillllillri:::,"Tf^yi!&:n,lu:ll;uist""_,1,:;,,*:i: respondents to rerease the power suppry without insisiing to occupancy certificate I,A. NO: 1 oF 2017 WPMP. NO: 7662 oF 2017

¶14

Petition under section.l5'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support-or re petitiJn,li""Higi'iorn may be preased to direct the 2nd Respondent to rerease. the porr". "uppii^{io the petitionerbuirdingin prot} No. 81/'t0, in Sy. No. 77 or Madhapur, Hvj"[!i fu"cround + 3 Ftoors only

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI K. DURGA PRASAD !1unse!^{for the Respondent No.1:e p rbn} ir.rEil,i uounset for the Resnondent No.2: SRI R. VINOD npOOy, SC The Court made the'following: OROti'

¶16

) )

¶17

, t

¶18

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶19

WRIT P ION o.625 70F20¹⁷

¶20

(

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri K. Durga^{Prasad, learned counsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner,learned Ass'stant} Government^{Pleaderfor Energy,appearing on behalf of} respondent No'l^{and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel^{for TGSPDCL,appearing on behalfof} respondent No.2

¶23

The^{petitioner approached theCourt seeking} prayer as under:

¶24

" ...to issue an appropriate^{Writ order or direction} more particularly one in^{the nature of Writ of} Mandamus declaring the^{actionof the Respondents} in not releasing the^{power supply to the petitioner} building in Plot^{No. BU10 in Sy' No. 77 of Madhapur} Hyderabad as illegal,^{null, void. arbitraryand} consequently^{directthe respondents to release the} power supply without insisting^tooccupancy certlficate and to Pass...".

wP 625',7 201'7

It is represented by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned' Standing-Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 that by virtue of the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner on 22.02.20t7 in W.p.M.p. No. 7662 of 2077 no further orders are necessary.

¶29

4 Bringing the said submission of both the learned counsel on record, the writ petition is closed, However, there sha be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if anY, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶31

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSIS REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

S ON OFFICER

To, 1. One CC to Sri K. Durga Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511112024

ORDER

WP.No.6257 of 2017

I
R T H F- s i;q
k o
C:.
J
0 7 JAri 2025 l
t
o- I
'r'y
a

¶43

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶44

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

6
W

G Muralidar v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Energy,Hyd,and Anot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Muralidar v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Energy,Hyd,and Anot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramulu Jarupula Vs The State of Telangana

Bhattu Venkanna Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Gouse Vs The State represented by Central Power

K.U.V.S.S. Srihari, Vs The State of Telangana

Karshak Art Printers, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G Muralidar, Hyderabad Vs Prl Secy, Power and Energy Dept, Hyderabad and Another