Disposed

Mohammed Gouse v. The State represented by Central Power

Telangana HC4 Nov 2024WP/9770/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding disputed power supply connections. It directed the electricity authorities to approach the competent court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and restrained them from demanding the balance payment pending such adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to approach competent court under Section 154(5) of Electricity Act, 2003, and not to demand balance amounts until decided by such authority.

Mohammed Gouse Vs The State represented… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

A132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY^{OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9770 OF²⁰⁰⁹

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Gouse, S/o.Shaik^Imam Rl/o.H.No.B-3-22211 18, Plol^{No.1 28,} IVladhuranagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State represented by Central^{Power, Distribution Companyof Andhra} Pradesh Ltd., Hyderabad represented^{by its Managing Director-} 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ameerpet^{Sub-Division, A.P.C.P.D.C.L.'} Ameerpet' Hyderabad

¶11

...RES'.NDENTS

¶12

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 writ or direction^particularly in the nature^{of mandamusor any} other appropriate writ, declaring the^{proceedings in DPE/HYN/SODI/1 579/09 with} respect to SC.No.13584, DPE/HYN/SDOI/'1^{581/09,withrespect to SC.No.2489} DPE/HYN/SDOI/1 583/09 and DPE/HYN/SDOI/1^{584/09with respectto the} SC.No.13585, daled 24.4.2OO9 on the^{file of the 2nd respondent}

¶13

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 12703 OF 2009)

¶14

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 stay all further proeeedings pursuant to DPE/HYN/SODI/I579/09 with respect to SC.No.13584, DPE/HYN/SDOll15B1l}g with respect to SC.No.2489 DPE/HYN/SDOI/1583/09 and DPE/Hyn/SDOll15B4l09 with respect to the SC.No.13585, dated 24.4.2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition

¶15

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 13474 OF 2009)

¶16

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in,;the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the service connection Nos. 52-13585, 52-13584 and restore power supply to SC S'l-2489 provided in the premises in H.No.8-3-2221118, Plot No.128, Madhuranagar Colony, Hyderabad, stand in the name of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition No. 9770 of 2009

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. R. AVULA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.977O of 2OO9

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri V.R,Avula, learned senior designate counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

2 The oetitioner aDDroac hed the Court seekino oraver as under:

¶24

"...to issue writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the proceedings in DPE/HYN/SODU 1579/09 with respect to SC.No.13584, DPE/HYN/SDOI/1581/09, with respect to SC.No.2489 DPE/HYN/SDOI/1583/09 and DPE/HYN/SDOI/t584/O9 with respect to the SC.No. 13585, dated 24.4.2009 on the file of the 2"d respondent and pass such other order or orders..."

¶25

3 This Court on 28.O 5.2OO9 in W.P.M.P.No.L3474 of 20O9, oassed interim orders in favour of the Detitioner observiho as under:

¶26

"There shall be interim direction as prayed for subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing

<br>I

SN, J wP 9't't0 2009

50o/o of the demanded amount within a period of four weeks from today.

¶31

It is also made clear that the amount already. paid shall be given credit to."

¶32

This Court thereafter aqain on 04.03.2014 in W.V.M.P.No.2962 ol 2OO9,^passed orders observinq as under:

¶33

"lt is represented by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that he has complied with the order clated 28.05.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.13474 of 2009 and the said order has been continuing for the last 4 yea rs.

¶34

In the circumstances the said order cannot be vacatcd at this stage and it is made absolute, Accord ingly, W.V. M. P. is dismissed."

¶35

[t is represented by Sri V.R.Avula, learned senior designate counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearinq on behalf of respondents that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents to approach the competent Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the respondents shall not demand the^payment

¶36

¶37

¶38

SN. J \'1,^r)7?i) 2009

¶39

of the balance 50o/o of the demanded amount till subject issue is decided by the competent Court.

¶40

Bringing the saad submission of both the learned counsel on record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to approach the competent Court as provided under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 and till the decision is arrived at by the competent authority pertaining to the subject issue under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, respondents shall not demand the balance amount from the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

¶44

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// _f

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The lt/anaging Director, Central^{Power,Distribution Company of Andhra} Pradesh Ltd., Hyderabad

¶48

The Assistant Dlvisional Engineer, Ameerpet Sub-Division,^{A.P.C.P.D.C.L.,} Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶49

One CC to SRI. V. R. AVULA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRl. R. VINOD REDDY,SC FOR^TGSPDCL [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD Copies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411112024

ORDER

I
o RlHE S 14
Y
<br>i at l,r; zizi
* {

¶57

WP.No.9770 of 2009

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶59

WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

7
//
.1 //f

Mohammed Gouse v. The State represented by Central Power

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Gouse v. The State represented by Central Power

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

M/s. Surya Jyorthi Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of

Gandala Parushuram Vs Sri Narsaiya

M/s. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of

Ramulu Jarupula Vs The State of Telangana

Bhattu Venkanna Vs The State of Telangana

Yachamaneni Chandra Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana