Disposed

M/s. Kallem Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Apr 2025WP/13096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing power distribution companies to release additional electricity load without insisting on an occupancy certificate. Following an earlier order in W.P.No.6030 of 2020, the court directed release of supply subject to terms and an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate within a prescribed period.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release power supply subject to terms, conditions and undertaking to produce occupancy certificate within prescribed period; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s. Kallem Constructions Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13096 0F 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

lvl/s. Kallem Constructions, Rep- by its ilanaging partner Sri. K. Ranjeet Reddy S/o. Late. K. Chandra Shekar Reddy-aged about 42 years, 6cc Business, Rt/o. Villa No. 129, Prestige' R5yal Woods,^'Kismatpur, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Plinclpal Secretary, power and Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶12

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd of Telangana, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad^'

¶13

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd oi Telangaha, Rep. by The Superintending Engineer, operation Medchal Circle;Medchal.

¶14

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd of Telangana, Rep by its Assistant Divisional Engineer, operation, Kukatpally Sub DiviSion, Medch6l Circle

¶15

Commisioner, GHMC, Kukatpally Zone, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not releasing power supply of 2Nos three phase CT meter each 40 KW Cat- ll Non Domestic load over and above existing 1No Sc.No. 12012 12042 10KW thus making a total load of 90 KW to the Petitioners property bearing plot No. 9-A and '10-A in survey No. 181, total land admeasuring 767.97 Sq. yds or equivalent to 642.02 Sq. mts situated at Addagutta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd of Kukatpally village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to release the power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate.

¶18

-ffiPz

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition undt,,r Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct Respondents 2 anc 3 to release power supply of 2Nos thre,l phase CT meter each 40 KW Cat ll Non Domestic load over and above exist ng 1No Sc.No. 120.12 12042 1OKW thus r.raking a total load of 90 KW to the Petitioners property bearing Plot No. 9-A and 1[]-A in survey No. 181, total land admeasJring 767.97 Sq. yds or equivalent to 642.C2 Sq mts situated at Addagutta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd of Kukatpally vil age and lVlandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. NIKITA GOENKA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.RAVI MAHENOER, SC FOR GHMC

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I 1 (

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.13O96 OF 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage i[self

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶29

Constitution of India, seeking the following reliel

¶30

"...to is-sue an appropriate Writ, order at direction more patlicularllt one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declantlg tlp oction o.f tlE Re,spondents 2 & 3 n rlot releasing power suppLg oI2Nos three phase CT meter each 40 KW Cat II Non Dotnestic load ouer and aboue eisting 1No Sc.No.12O12 12042 IOKW tlLus mqkng a total load of 90 KW to the Petitioners propertg beanng Plot No. 9 A and 1O-A tn surueA No.lgl, total land odrneasuing 767.97 &. gds or equiualent to 642.02 Sq. mts situated at Addagutta Cooperatiue I lousing SocietA Ltd of KukalpaltA uittage and Manda[ Medchal Malkagiri Disrrrc, as illegal, null, uoid, arbitrary and corsequetltlA dtrect the Resporvlents 2 to 4 to release the pouer supplg uithout insi.sLing for occvpancA certificate and to pass... "

¶31

I t

¶32

Heard Ms.Nikita Goenka, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Enerry for respondent No. l; Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, for respondent Nos.2 to 4; and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standrng Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for respondent No.5.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.603O of 2O2O, dated 20.O4.202O, and requested this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ Petition also.

PK,J
Wp 13096-2025

The samc is rot^{seriously disputed by the learrLcd Government} Pleader as u'cl^{I zrs learned Standing Counselfor the lespondents'}

¶38

In vtcu' rl th,'^{abovesubmissions and for the reasons alike in} the ordcr oI t]ris^{Court in W.P.No.6O30of 202O,-dzLted2O'O12O2O} ' thisWritPctitonisdisllosedofdirectingtherespotrtlentstoreiease the power supply^{lo ttrc premisesof the petitionersubjectto the} compliancc^c I^{th<: lerms and conditions ando -r furnishing an} undertaking Io^{pr<lducc theoccupancycertirl(]atc fromthe} conccrnccl Mt^{rnir:ipal Corporation withina prescriltcdpcriod' and if} no such^oc.rl.r l)zrrlcv^{ccl tilicate is producedwithinsuch period'it is} opcn to lltt:^{I i sl.rotlr:1cl'lts to take appropriateactitllr in accordance} with law.

¶39

Miscr:ll,trtcorts^{pctitions pending,if any, shall standclosed}

¶40

¶41

Therc shall b,'ncl^{order zrs to costs}

¶42

SD/.N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -_ -,-,.-' SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To 1 The Principarl^{Secretary, Power and-Energy Department' Secretariat'} Hvderabad, 3tate^{of Telangana-500022.}

¶44

2 Tt; C;;il, ;;no^{vunigi"ng Director, SouthernPow':r Distribution Company} Ltd of^Telan, lana,^{I/lnt Compound,Hyderabad} -. - ..

¶45

a i'ht sroe|.in.endinq Enqine;r,^{SoJtn6m PowerDistrik'ution Company Ltd of} fetanqina,^{)peration lvledchalCircle, Medchal} -

¶46

4 +h;AHi;i; iiDiusio^{nar rngheei, Sduthern power.DrstributioncompanyLtd} i, opuiuiion,^{Ku"katpalivSub Division, Me'lr:halCircle}

¶47

5 "i'i,irl",6";"cc ; i ij" i iir-N iKITA corui'ln, navocate [oPuc] 6 i;; cc;I. cF Fon^{Er.rencv, Hign courtfor the Stateof relangana'at} Hvderabad. IOUTI

¶48

1. iji,i,"biii" s;hrk nnvt^{MAHENDER, sc Fo1r9lll4!)LoPUCl} 8. 5;; cc i" i;ni^r'r sieronAa^{n-rboY, sc FoRTGT;PDCL[oPUC]} 9. Two CD Cotries

PSK. GJP

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810412025

ORDER

WP.No.13096 of 2025

o
'(
t) 1tt6 o
s1 \i\ ::.
*
: .a
a .. .. t

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

0
o

M/s. Kallem Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kallem Constructions 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

K.Satyanarayana, Vs Sri. v.P.Gautham

Bhukya Praveen Vs Smt, S.Sandhya

M/S K C M Builders Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Dny Infra and Constructions Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

M.Sandeep Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Konda Tanuja Vs The State of Telangana