Allowed

Dr. v. Malathi Devi v The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Mar 2024WP/716/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an electricity connection application, directing the respondent Company to provision supply forthwith. The Court dismissed the accompanying miscellaneous applications impleading new parties.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent Corporation to provide electricity connection to the petitionerforthwith pursuant to application No NR154233811607 dated 28.11.2023.

Dr. v. Malathi Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE SEVENTHDAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

l.A.Nos.2&3^ot2024 AND

¶7

WRIT PETIT^{ION NO:716 0F 2024}

¶8

WRIT PETITION^{NO:716 0F 2024}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dr. v. Malathi^{Devi, woJ. AshokVardhanRerldvAoed about 67 years,} Occ Doctor,^{R/o. Flat"lrjo"4oz,sH'rC} 1lt'yEr"gini6'^{Kdshav Nagar Colony'} Behind Railway^{ohi;;*-"ei;,ruliiu6uoal Secunderabad'Lallasuda'} Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of^{Telangana,ReP. bY it} s Principal Secretary,^{Powerand Energy} Department.^{Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶14

2 Southern Power^{Distributton Company Limited of Telangana State' Rep. by its} ffiffi;;'Jnd^{Mr"igrs Di*.i";-offi""at ttilint compo-und' Hvderabad'}

¶15

3 Southern superintending Power^{Distributron Engrneer Company i;.';bE/opeiaiio_nlRaldnaranaoar. Limrtedof Telangana State'Rep' 33/111(/by its} Raiendranasar^{sub-statron "pi"n1il;tl'-r[""i-Firrat' No232I Main Road'} UpilerpallY,^HYderabad.

¶16

4 Southern Power [." til;[u"i'i;^{g Distribution Company Limited i neei- op","Jo,iJ-', r'rli l insi, of l.l arsin Telanoana g I Ga nd State" ipeta Rep M a ndal,by} Ranga ReddY^District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith;the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderorDirection.moreparticularlyinthenatureof WRIT OF MANDAMUS^{to declare the action of the 4th Respondentherein} wherein he rejected^{to provide Electricity Connectionto the Petitionerherern vide} Lr.No.NR154233811607,Dated28/lll2O23,asillegal,arbitraryunconstitutional andviolationofArticle2loftheConstitutionoflndiaandConsequentlydirectthe

¶19

Respondents to^provide Electricity connection^{pursuant to the applicationof the} Petitioner dated 28^{I 11 12023}

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court maybe pleased to} DIRECT the Respondents to^{provide Electricity Connection pursuantto the} application No NR154233811607 of^{the Petitionerdated2811112023forthwith,} pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

lA NO: 4 OF 2024

¶23

Between:

¶24

Southern Power Distribution Company^{Limited of Telangana State, Rep. by its} Charrman and tVlanaging Director, Office^{at MintCompound,Hyderabad.}

¶25

Southern Power Distribution Company Limited^{of Telangana State, Rep. by its} Supenntending Engrneer. 0/o. ADE/Operation/Rajendral?ga-r,^33/11KV Rajendranagai Sub-station Premises, Near Pillar^{No.232,Main Road.} Upperpally, Hyderabad

¶26

3- Southern Power Distribution Company Limited of^{TelanganaState,, Rep. by} its Assistant Engineer Operations --Narsingi, Narsingi,^{Gandipeta[Viandal,} Ranga Reddy District

¶27

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS² to⁴

¶28

AND

¶29

1 Dr. V. Malathi Devi, Wo. J. Ashok Vardhan Reddy,^{Aged about 67 years,} Occ Doctor, R/o. Flat No. 402, SMR Vinay Elegance,^{Keshav Nagar Colony,} Behind Railway Officers Club, Mettuguda, Secunderabad,^Lallaguda. Hvderabad

¶30

...RES'.NDENT/'ET.a.NER

¶31

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Powerand Energy} Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶32

..,RESPONDENTS

¶33

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} vacate the interim order dated 10 0'l .2024 in WP. No. 716 of 2023^{and dismiss} the writ petitron.

I I r I

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

Between:

M/s. Jaihind Greenfields LLP., (formerly known as t//s. Jahind^Greenfields Pvt. Ltd,,) rep. by its Director Sri Y.Pratap Reddy, Office at^{8-3-229111D126,} Sravanthi Nagar, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶39

...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT

¶40

AND

¶41

1 Dr. V. Malathi Devi, Wo. J. Ashok Vardhan^{Reddy,Aged about 67 years,} Occ Doctor, R/o Flat No.402, SMR Vinay Elegance,^{Keshav NagarColony,} Behind Railway Officers Club, Mettuguda, Secunderabad,^Lallaguda Hyderabad

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{PowerandEnergy} Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶44

Southern Power Distribution Company Limited^{of Telangana State, Rep by its} Chairman and tvlanaging Director, Office at Mint Compound,^Hyderabad.

¶45

Southern Power Drstribution Company Limited of Telangana^{State,Rep by its} Superintending Engineer Oio. ADE/Operation/Raiendranagar, .33/11KV Rajendranagai Subistation PremiSes, Near^{Pillar No.232,lVIain Road} Upperpally, Hyderabad

¶46

Southern Power Distribution Company Limited^{of TelanganaState', Rep by} its Assistant Engrneer - Operations^--Narsingi, Narsingi,^{Gandipeta Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

Petition under Rule 16-A Writ Rules^{praying 'that} in^{the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe} pleased to implead the petitioner herein as Sth respondent^{in the abovewrit} petition as well as other miscellaneous petition in the interest of^justice.

¶49

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶50

Between:

¶51

Y.Jaihind Reddy, S/o Late Sri Raji Reddy, aged^{about 72 years, Occ} Business. Rto.^{b3-229t1lD/26, Sravanthi Nagar, Road No.10, JubileeHills,} Hyderabad-

¶52

..PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT^No.5

¶53

AND

¶54

1 Dr V. ft4alathi Devi, Wo. J. Ashok Vardhan^{Reddy,Aged about 67 years'} Occ Doctor, R/o. Ftat^{No 402, SITIR VinayElegance, Keshav Nagar Colony'} Behind Railway Officers Club, I\Iettu!uda,^{Secunderabad'Lallaguda.} .-..

¶55

Hyderabad

¶56

r ,,/ji,1,-5r -^{i )rl.} -:-l 'ti i ,?i l

¶57

..PETITIONER

¶58

2 The State of Telangana,^{Rep-by its Principal Secretary, Powerand Energy} Department. Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶59

3 Southern Power^{Distribution Company Limited of TelanganaState' Rep, by its} Charrman and Managing^{Director,Office at lvlint Compound,HyderaDao'}

¶60

4 Southern Power^{Distribution Company Limited of Telangana State'Repby its} 5rpilii"i"i,o-iiiri^{engineer.-o7o-' Abeloperation/Rajendrgl?ga-r:33/11KV} il;i-.il;;;;s;i srolStaiion^{Premises,Near Pillar'No 232 [vlain Road} Up'perpally, Hyderabad.

¶61

Southern Power Distribution^{Company Limitedof TelanganaState"R€p} ,by its Assrstant Engineer^{- Operations- Narsingi, Narsingt,Gandlpeta Manoal'} Ranga Reddy District

¶62

...RESPONDENTS

¶63

Petition under Rule^{16-A Writ Rules prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be} pleased to implead the^{petitioner hereinas proposed5th respondentin the} above writ^{petition as well as other miscellaneous.petition in the interest of} justrce

¶64

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SMT CHINTALAPUOILAKSHMI KUMARI}

¶65

Counsel for the Petitioners^{in l.A.No.2 oI 2024: SRI B.MOHAN}

¶66

counset for the Petitioners in^{l.A.No.3 0t 2024: SRI Y.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY}

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.l: GP FORENERGY}

¶68

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 to 4: SRI R.VINOD REDDY,} SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶69

The Court made the following:^ORDER

:, ::i'.

t:I i: ,:ii lr I

{ ,

! i

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶78

I.A.Nos.2&3OF.2o24 AND WRIT PE'TITION No.716 OF 2o24

¶79

ORDER:

¶80

The Writ Petition is filed to Challenge the action of the 4h Respondent herein wherein he rejected to provide Electricity Connection to petitioner uide NR1542338 I 1607, dated 28.1 7.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional anci violation of Article of 2 I of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, Sri B. Mohan, learned counsel lor petitioners in I.A.No.2 of 2024 and Sri Y.Raja sekhar Reddy, Iearned counsel for petitioners in LA.No.3 of 2024 . 3. Today, while dealing with somewhat similar circumstances, in Writ Petition No. 28879 of 2023, this Court passed the order, in detail, dismissing the implead Applications and directing the respondent Corporation to provide electricity connection to petitioner in respect of subject premises, forthwith pursuant to the Application made by her.

¶81

¶82

In view of the same, this Writ Petition is also allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to provicie electricit5r connection to petitioner in respect of Plot No. 1871 admeasuring 5O0 square yards in Survey Nos. 111, 134, 135, 136, 137, t38, 146/A/1, 148, 149, 1s0, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, t59/A, t6r, t62, t65, 166, 77r, r78, I79, 180, 183, 181, 189, 190, 191, 181/A situated at Shankar Hills Layout, Vattinagulapally Village, (Rajendranagar Taluk) present Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, forthrvith pursuant to the Application dated 2a. I I .2023. In Lhe clrcumstances, it is directed that proposed parties shall deposit cosrs of Rs. 1,OOO/each in favour of the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from today. If the said directive is not complied with, needless to say, Registry shall tisr thc matter before the Court. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 are dismissed.

¶83

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

¶84

any shall stand closed.

¶85

//TRUE^COPY'/

¶86

SN/. K.SREERAMA MURTY - asstsrerur REGIFTRAR .1

¶87

SECTION/OFFICER

¶88

To, 1 The Hyderabad,^{principar Secretary, State of l elangana'power and Energy DepartmentSecretariat,}

¶89

companv

¶90

2 *:,:miT:eilj"y^{sSPJ:ER[:"jfllh,:is'lfi'J"::["'l iJ::'"B:'J:n}

¶91

J rhe Superintendins^Ensineer'^{SouthernPower} '-':i'lo,:l!%9"#1"^v.5)T]tt:$ ftJ.",5#j:l-ril,'t?;,,",1''r,"#.'.EJ,ot'"J:l'"H'[#"';i!?"'tr,rairi-Road U^{p'perPallY. HYderabad}

¶92

4 lfiAru1^{*F#:f ?tLPffi 3.3i,',;\1i:lli'3','15,'J"i,"fi""'"?ii:.#X3:} Reddy^District

¶93

¶94

One CC to SMT CHINTALAPUD| LAkSHM| KUI,AR|, Advocate tOpUCl

¶95

One CC to SRt B.MOHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶96

One CC to SRI y.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI

¶97

One CC to SRt R VTNOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL [OPUC]

¶98

9- Two CCs to Gp FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶99

10.Two CD Copies *-)/

BSR BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710312024

!, /

ORDER l.A.Nos.2 &3of 2024 AND

¶105

WP.No.716 ot 2024

¶106

o r.i t.r( la
\r 0 6 I'IAY 2024 E
.o
I't
* t)FspATCIl'i:'

¶107

DISMISSING THE l.A's^AND

¶108

ALLOWING THE WRIT^PETITION

¶109

a-r)

Dr. v. Malathi Devi v The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. v. Malathi Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Shakeel Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

M.A. Hafeez Vs Smt. G. Narsamma

R.R.G.R.P. Industries Vs The State of A.P. rep. by

Brahmandam Laxmi Venkata Bhaskara Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Hasanuddin Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Suharshika Crop Organics Vs The State of Telangana