Disposed

Sangepu Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jul 2025WP/13262/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging threatened disconnection of the petitioner's electricity connection and interference by distribution company officials. Respondents 2 to 5 filed a counter denying any interference with the connection. In view of the counter affidavit, the court found no further orders required and disposed of the writ petition, closing miscellaneous petitions with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sangepu Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

A/ONDAY, IHE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13262 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sangepu Kavitha, Wo. S.Sravan Kumar, Aged about 33 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-2-320, Plot No.159, S.B.H. Colony, Venture-2, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

) The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (TGSDPCL), Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

J The Superintendent Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (TGSDPCL), Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

4 The Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (TGSDPCL), Saroornagar Division, Ranga Reddy D strict.

¶15

q The Assistant Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (TGSDPCL), L.B.Nagar Circle, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶16

6 Sangepu Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Late Laxminarayana, Aged about 54 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3-2-32O, PloI No.159, S.B.H. Colony, Venture-2, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

7 Sangepu Shravan Kumar, S/o. Late Laxminarayana, Aged about 38 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.3-2-320, Plot No.159, S.B.H. Colony, Venture-2, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 Respondent No.5 in interfering into the peaceful power consumption through vide S.C. No.152902894 and trying to disconnect the power connection in House No.3-2-320, Plot No.159,

¶20

S.B.H.^{Colony, Venture-2, L.B.Nagar, Ranga ReddyDistrict and trying to} disposes^{the Petitioner from the house of the Petitioner without issuingany} notice^{and without following the due process of law by colluding with the} Respondent^{Nos.6and 7 is illegal, arbitrary,u nconstitution a I and violationof} Articles^{14, 15.21 and 300-4of Constitution of lndia and alsoviolationof} Principles^{of Natural Justice and consequently direct the RespondentNo.5 not to} interfere into^{peaceful powerconsumption and not} to^{disconnectpower} connection of^{the Petitioner through vide S.C.No.152902894in her residential} house bearing^{No.3-2-320in PlotNo.159,whichis situated} at^{S.B.H. Colony,} Venture-2,^{L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District during} the^pendency of^criminal CASCS.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section^{151'CPC praying} that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in} support^{of the petition, the HighCourt may} be^pleased to direct the Respondent^{trlo.Snbt to interfere into peaceful power} consumption and not to disconnect^{power connection} of the Petitioner through vide S.C.No.152902894^{in her residential house bearing No.3-2-320in PIotNo.159,} which is situated at S.B.H. Colony,^{Venture-2, L.B.Nagar,} Ranga Reddy District during the^pendency of criminal^{cases pending disposal} of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶24

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

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 to 5: SRI N.SREEDHAR} REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

I I

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶29

WRIT PETITION No. 13262 oF 2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed under Artrcle 226 of^the

¶32

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶33

''.-.to l-ssue utit, or<\er or tlirec1ion, more p.Lrticularlg one in nature of Wit of M(utdctnus to declore the octiort of respondent No.S in interJeing into tlrc 1te-ac<ful potLter consunption tlrouglt uicle S.C.No.1529O2894^{dnd lrlJingto} rJisconnect tlTe pouer ionnection iit House No.3 2 32O, ptot No.159, S.B.H Colo !t, Venture 2, L.B.Nag(lr, Ranga Reddg Distict and trytng to disposes. llle petitioner Jrom the ttousi of tlrc petitioner utithout issuing anll ttolre Qnd tuiLl@ut follotqitLg tlle due process i7 latu bg coltudtrtg t itlt tlle respon'lent Iy'o-s 6 an.a 7 is ittegal, arbitrarll, uncotistitutional and uiolation of Articles 14,15, 21 oncl 3OO A of Conititution of India and uiol(ttion of Pirtciples o.f Natur..l Juslice atld consequentlg direcl the respondent No.S not to interfere ittto peoce,fttl Txtwer consuitption antd rtot to disconnect potl)er contlectio't of the pet ioner tltrough uide S.C.No 1529()2894 ard pass..."

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,^learned Government pleader for Energr for respondent^No.1and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel^{lor respondent} Nos.2 to S.

¶35

3' Respondent Nob.2 to 5 have hled counter stating as follows "In reply to the auennents made in the afftdauit filed in support of the utrit petition, it is submitted that these respondents neuer interfered uith the olleged peaceful potDer consumption of the petitioner nor tried to disconnect the potuer supplA to the House beaing No. 3-2-320 in Plot No. 159 situated at SBH Colony, Venture-2, L.B Nagar, Raruga Red.dg Distri.ct, as alleged bg the petitioner- It is submitted- that tLLe Ser-uice Connection No. 1529O2894 is in

¶36

¶37

the t'Ldme^{of S.Ramesh.Kumar (6th Respondentherein)} residing at^{H.No-2-1O7, L.B.Nagar, SBH Venture II,} L.B.Nagar, Ranga^{Reddy District. There is no influence} exerted by^{Responden /Vos.6 and 7 on RespondentNo.S,} as alleged in^{the affidauit} filed^{in support of the writ} petition. Respondent^{No.5 hereinneuercolluderl'utith} Respondent^{Nos.6and 7 at ang point of time nor tried t'o} interfere^{tuith the allegedpeacefulpoluerconsumption of} the petitioner^{much less disconnectingthe pouter supplgto} the residential^{houseof the petitioner."}

¶38

In view of^{the counter affidavit Iiledby respondent Nos.2 to 5,} no further ordcrs^{are required to be passed in this u'rit petition}

¶39

Accordingly, [his wnt^{petition is disposedof. Miscellaneous} petitions pending, it any,^{st-rall stand closed. Therc shall be no} order as to costs

¶40

SD/.S.^{MALLIKARJUNARAO} S ittAiii^'cEceiB4 -/-

¶41

//TRUE^COPY// j SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To, m ent, Secretariat^Building' 1. The PrinciP^{al Secretary,Powerand EnergY DePa} Secretariat,^{Hyderabad,State of Telangana}

¶43

1. The Distribu^C hairman tion ComPanY and^ManaLtd grng(TG SDPCL), Director,^{Telangana'Telangana Hyderabad.StateSouthernPower}

¶44

The^{SuPerintendentEng ineer,Telang ana State Southern PowerDistribution} ComPanY^Ltd ,^{(TGSDPC L), RangaReddy District.}

¶45

Telang ana^{State Southern PowerDistribution}

¶46

4 The Company^{Divisional Ltd} (TGSDPCL),^{Engineer,Saroornagar Division , RangaReddY D strict'}

¶47

The^{Assistant Engineer,TelanganaState SouthernPowerDistribution} Company Ltd.,^{(TGSDPCL), L B.Na gar Circle,RangaReddY Dist}

¶48

OnC CC tO SRI^{RAPOLU BHASKAR,AdVOCAtE [OPUCI}

¶49

7 ONC CC tO SRI N^{SREEDHAR REDDY,SC FORTGSPDCL [OPUC]} TwoCCstoGPFORENERGY,HighcourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

I Two CD^CoPies RSR I .a.

¶51

HIGH COURT

¶52

DATED:0710712025

¶53

-:' - _\l - , . - .
lrlc:/4
( J $.
r1r
oto 2 5 JUL 2025
ic

'
.rr', fil i

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.13262 of 2025

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS

Sangepu Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sangepu Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anthargama Chandramma Vs Sri. Akula Venkatesh

Thrinath Sandharaju Vs Sri B. Venkatesh, IAS

Bura Srinivas Vs Sri. E.V. Narasimha Reddy, IAS

Ganiboina Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bhaskar Alloy Castings Vs The State of Telangana

G. Sujatha Vs The Tsrtc