The Northern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGNPDCL), having its Corporate Office at H.No. 2-5-31l2, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana 50600'1. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶14

The Northern Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGNPDCL), having its Circle Office at Khammam, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer.

¶15

The Operation Division, TGNPDCL, Sathupally, Khammam District. Rep. by its Divisional Engineer.

¶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 a writ order, or direction more particularly one ip the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking any action on the representation of the^petitioner daled 2910712025 for^payment of Ex-Gratia, in respect of the death of the petitioners daughter due to fatal accident resulting owing to electrocution under the category of Per Person as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural^justice, apart from violation of the Order passed by the Telan ana State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide

¶18

Proceedings No. TSERC/Secy/64/2017 (D.No. 780). dated 2811212017, consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner daled 2910712025 for the payment of Ex-Gratia, in respect of the death of the petitioner's daughter due to fatal accident resulting owing to electrocution under the category of Per Person as per the Order in Proceedings No. TS E RC/Secy/t) 4 I 2 0 1 7⁽ D. No. 780 ), dated 28 I 1 21 2O 1 7 .

¶19

I.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith take action on the representation of the petitioner dated 2910712025 for payment of Ex-Gratia, ih respect of the death of the petitioners daughter due to fatal accident resulting owing to electrocution under the category of Per Person as per the Order in Proceedings No. TSERC/Secy/64/2017 (D.No. 780), dated 2811212017, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for th,e Pr:titioner : SRI P.CHAITHANYA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI A.CHANDRA SHEKAR, SC FOR TGNPDLC

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

\ \

¶26

¶27

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE I\IAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.31342 of 2o25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of rcspondent No.2 in not taking any action on the representation ol tl.re petitioner dated 29.O7.2025 lor paymerrt of Ex-Gratia, in respect of the death of the petitioner's daughter due to fatal accident resulting orving to electrocution under the category ol " l)r'r Perscn".

¶30

Hcard Sri P. Chaithanya, learned counsel tbr the pcl-itioner, learned Government Pleader for Energr lor respondent No.1 and Sri A. Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Cr;unsel for TGNPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the rccord.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and requested this Court to direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2025 as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

¶33

Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Stalding Counsel lor TGSPDCL, for respondents submits that if the said petitioner's representatiorr is still pending for consideration, respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the said petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance u,ith lar,r,.

¶34

In vieu' ol the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on eithcr side and without expressing any opinior-r on the merits of thc case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.11025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1aw rvithin a period of four (04) weeks lrom the date of receipt of :r cop1, of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No ccl sts

¶35

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶36

¶37

closed

¶38

To ,. J!:-lllf:l{P::r"i1ry, ro Govern ment, Enersy Depattment, retansa na, 5ecreranat. state ot lelangana at Hyderabad.

¶39

The Chairman and Managihg Direct5r, ruorthern Distribution Company of Telanqana Lirnited (TGNFo6r-1. rraving its coipor"t" orice at i fto. b-s-sltz,

¶40

^^{YjOVyt Bhavan,Na(kalagutta, Hanamt<"onOa,i,tiaian-gat, fefanganalOodOi.'-'} 3. T he S u^pe ri n te n d i no E noin ee i, No rth e rn Dlsii bui;;n "C;. p -* v"# i"ir-"S;; . lirit:g^{(TGNPDCL.-),hivins iis circre onice iis circre onice onice} it?riur.r.

¶41

. lirit:g^{(TGNPDCL.-),hivins iis circre onice iis circre onice onice} it?riur.r.

¶42

1. tne Dtvlstonat Enoineer. Operation Division, TGNPDCL, Sathupally, Khammam District

Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad. [OUT]
6. One CC to SRI P.CHAITHANYA, Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CD Copies
\ SA
PVL
v

) I

HIGH COIURT

DATED:271,,1012025

ORDER

WP.No.31342 of 2025

1HE S I.1
'J$
?-
,'':: rl
0+ N0v 16
\ i'l r€d€

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

@
1 lLt p,f-

Chukka Haribabu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chukka Haribabu 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

Pogula Satheesh Vs Union of India

Degama Karthik Kumar, Vs State of Telangana

Sudhakar Gosikonda Vs Union of India

Mohammed Mujtaba Hussain Vs The Union of India

Laxman Satla Vs The Union of India

Syed Akramuddin Vs Union of India