Dismissed

V. Madhava Rao, Hyderabad and 11 Others v. Md, Tsspdcl., Vidyutsoudha, Hyd and 3 Others

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024WP/6490/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-line order dismisses Writ Petition No. 6490 of 2017 (filed in 2017) as infructuous. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing TSTRANSCO to provide electrical connections and individual meters to plot owners in specific housing societies. The dismissal arose because the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication, a point not disputed by the petitioner's counsel. No order

What the court decided

AI extract

V. Madhava Rao, Hyderabad and 11 Others Vs Md… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

|^32s21

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6490 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri V.Madhava Rao, S/o. Late V. Veera Raghavaiah. Aged about 68^years, Occ Business, Fl/o. S-2 Tirumala Apartments,^{ArunodayaColony,} Madhapur,Hyderabad.

¶9

Smt. Gandla Jyostna, W/o. Chirravuri Udaya Kiran, Aged about^{41 years,} Occ House wife, Rl/o. H.No. 6-1-114111 5, Walkers Town, Back Gate, Gandhi Hospital, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad-500025.

¶10

Sri Pothuri Vijaya Gopala Varma, S/o P.Satyanarayana Raju, Aged about⁵⁴ years, Occ Agriculture, No. 1-2, Marlapalem,Kothalanka, East Godavary Dist.,A.P.

¶11

Sri.P.Praveen Kumar, S/o. R.Narasaiah, Aged about 36^years, occ business, R:/o. House No. 22-83,VikasGrammer School, Cheriyal. Warangal-506223

¶12

Smt. Kotwal Saritha, W/o Kotwal Ramesh, Aged about 34^{years, OccHouse} wife, Ri./o. H.No.1-5-l 102/4,Mangapuram colony, Old Alwal, Malkajgiri,^Ranga reddy-500010.

¶13

Smt. K. Janakamma, W/o. Late Ramaswamy, Aged^{about67 years,Occ} House Wife, Rl/o. H.No. 1-5-78912,F.8 Nagar, Old^{Alwal, Ranga Reddy,} Telangana.

¶14

Sri. K.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. K. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged about^{42 tears, Occ} Business, R/o.. H.No.8-3-231¹ lF 134, Sri Krishna Nagar,^{Hyderabad-45.}

¶15

Smt. Gutta Padma Latha, W/o. G.Srinivas, Aged about 47^{years, Occ} Housewife, Fl/o. H.No. 5-86, Hanuman Junction, BapulapaduMandal,^Krishna District.

¶16

Smt. M.Lavanya,, Wo. M.V.SatyaBhanuKiran,^{Aged about 28 years,Occ} Software Engineer, Rl/o. Plot No.1¹ 4, Vasavi^{Lake Colony,ChintalKunta,} Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

10.Sri G.Srinivas,, S/o. G.NageswaraRao, Aged about 50^{years, OccBusiness,} Rl/o. Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna Dristrict,A.P

¶18

11.Sri.V.Mahendrarao,, S/o. Hanumantharao, Rl/o.^{VaddepallyVillage,} HatnoorMandal, Medak Dist., A.P.

¶19

12.Smt. Malini Dugyala, W/o. Mahendrarao, H.No.^{2-2-20lBlB,BhagAmberpet,} Hvderabad-500013'

¶20

.....pETrroNERS

¶21

-7

¶22

AND

¶23

1 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, VidyutSoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad., Rep. by its Chairman-cumManaging Director.

¶24

2 Superintending Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, VidyutSoudha, Somagiguda, Hyderabad.

¶25

'l Divisional Engrneer, TSSPDCL, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶26

4 Asst. Div.Engineer, TSSPDCL, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad

¶27

.....RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondent No. 3 and 4 in not receiving the petitioners applications to provide the Electrical connection by installing individual meters to the owners of the plots in The Survey Of India Staff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, and also Vigneswara Housing Society in survey Nos. 11119,11120,11121 and 11131 situated at Khanamet Village, under GHMC, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. ., as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, violation of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to receive the petitioners- application for providing Electrical connection in accordance with general terms of power supply and to grant Electrical connection by providing individual meters to the houses of the petitioners with appropriate merits.

¶29

l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 WPMP.NO:7927 OF 20171

¶30

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 direct the respondents to receive the petitioners application to provide Electrical connection by providing individual meters to their plots in The Survey Of lndia Staff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, and Vigneswara Housing Society, in survey Nos. 11/19,11120,11121 and^'t1l3 situated at Khanamet Village, under GHMC, Serlingampally Mandat, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SRILAKSHMI VELICHETI Counsel for the Respondents : SRt R.VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

I \

¶33

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶34

WRIT P ETITION No 649O of 20L7

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard Smt. V. Srilakshmi,^{learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioners and Sri R. Vinod} Reddy. tearned Standing^{CounselforTSTRANSCO,} appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶37

The petitioners approached^{the Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶38

"...to grant an order, direction^{or writ more so in the} nature of Writ of mandamus^{declaring action of the} respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not^receivinqthe petitioners applications to^provide the^Electrical connection by installing^{individual meters to the} owners of the^{plots in the survey of India Staff Co-} Operative Housing Society^{Ltd, and also Vigneswara} Housing Society in survey^{Nos.11l19, ll/20, lt/21} and 1U31 situated at^{KhanametVillage, under} GHMC, Serlingampally^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distas} illegal, arbitrary, highhanded,^{violation of Article 14} of the constitution of^{Indiaand consequently direct} the respondents to^{receive thepetitioners} application for^{providing Electrical connection in} accordance with^{general termsof power supply and} to grant Electrical^{connectionbyproviding}

({

individual meters to the houses of the petitioners with appropriate merits."

¶43

It is represented by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondents that the cause of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication, any more. The said submission of learned Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondents is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶44

Bringing the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondents on record, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs,

¶45

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶46

in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶47

¶48

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSI ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Tat'*=o JJ""0-. FFICER

¶49

To 1. One CC to SRI SRILAKSHIVI VELICHETI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO) Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SA GJP \r,

}l..E

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211112024

ORDER

WP.No.6490 of 2017

f_ S t
1k{ t c
(
(r
2 / ,lnti 2tfi
l
t
o .5 T o

¶58

DISMISSING THE W.P

¶59

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶60

R+ td ; 5 c-(^t>

V. Madhava Rao, Hyderabad and 11 Others v. Md, Tsspdcl., Vidyutsoudha, Hyd and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V. Madhava Rao, Hyderabad and 11 Others v. Md, Tsspdcl., Vidyutsoudha, Hyd and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Lateef Ali Quadri Vs State of Telangana

Smt. P. Atchamma Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Deekonda Sunitha, Vs State of Telangana

Zakera Begum, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Ts Limited

M/s. Bharat Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Mukundlal Agarwal Vs The Principle Secretary (Revenue)