Dismissed¶29

M/s.Heemankshi Bakers Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2025WP/10032/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC (Pulla Karthik J), Writ Petition No. 10032 of 2015, M/s. Heemankshi Bakers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana / TSPDCL authorities — dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.07.2025 after repeated petitioner absences; Art. 226 mandamus petition challenging electricity charges of Rs.12,28,484/- and Rs.5,95,013/- (Jan/Feb 2015 bills); interim relief application under S.151 CPC; miscellaneous applications closed; no costs; merits not decided.

What did the court decide?

Despite the matter being listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner in either the forenoon or afternoon sessions, from which the Court inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. ¶28

M/s.Heemankshi Bakers Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I¹³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO TI-IOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10032 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.Heemankshi Bakers Pvt.Ltd., Survey No.709,J.P. Darga Road Mekaguda, Kothur Mandal Mahaboobnager District Rep.by its Director Sri Shravan Kumar Agarwal S/o.Sri Raj Kumar Agarwal

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Energy Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The TSPDCL, Rep.by its C.M.D. Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Divisional Engineer, TSPDCL, Electrical Operations, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶14

The Asst.Divisional Engineer (ADE) TSCPDCL, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar Dist.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^may be^pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^particulariy one rn the nature of a^writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demandrng the exorbitant charges of Rs.12,28,4841- and Rs.5,95,013^ for the months of January^and February vide bill d1.26-O1-2O15 and 26-02-2015 while the^petitioner's factory was not in operation as arbitrary, illegal and pass such other order or orders as thls Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPM P. NO: 13192 OF 201s)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased To direct the respondents not to demand the exorbitant charges of Rs.12,28,4841- and Rs-5,95,0131 for the months of January and February vide bill dt.26-01-2015^and 26-022015 while the petitione/s factory was not' in operation^pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. K JANAKIRAMI REDDY(NOT PRESENT)}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Respondent no.1: GP FOR ENERGY}

¶21

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.2 to 4: SRI N SREEDHAR REDOY(SC FOR} TELANGANA TRANSCO)

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULUT KAR'THIK

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.lOO 32 of 2Ol5

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

On t1.O3.2O25, 09.O4.2025, 11.06.2025, 18.O6.2O25 and 25.06.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. As such, the matter was directed to be listed today, i.e., O2.O7 .2025, under the caption, 'for dismissa.l'.

¶28

In spite of the matter being listed under the caption,^,for dismissal', there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either in the forenoon or aJternoon sessions. It can, thus, be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case any [urthe r.

¶29