Disposed

Arjun Somireddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2025WP/3496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking power supply declaration as illegal. Distinguishing based on a connected order, the Court directed distribution companies to consider the request upon submission of an occupancy certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 2 to 5 to consider the request to provide electricity connection upon petitioner complying with terms and furnishing an undertaking to produce occupancy certificate.

Arjun Somireddy Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

l32s2l

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3496 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arjun Somireddy, _S/o. Late S_o1irq{QV, Harsha Vardhan Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No. 40, Apama Elixii, K-hajaguda, Manikonda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of^Telanga.na, Rep. by its_Principal Secretary, power and Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶13

2 Southem Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana, Rep. bv its Chairman and Managing Director, Miht Cbmpound, Hyderibad.'

¶14

3 Southern Power Distribution Comp_any Ltd. of Telangana, Rep. by The Superintending Engineer, Operation Cy6ercity Circle, Cyb?rcity.

¶15

4 Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana, Rep. by The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Gachibo-wli Division, Cybe"rcity.

¶16

¶17

Southern Power Distribution ^Company Ltd. of Telangana, Rep. by The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Gachibowli Sub-Diviiion, bybtircity

¶18

6 Grpfter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town plannino Section, Reo. bv its Commissioner, Serilingamp ally Zone, Rangareddy Distriit.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 pa(icularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the power supply to the Petitioners property bearing plot No. 36 and 36-4 admeasuring 466.67 Sq yds each total admeasuring 933.34 Sq yds in Sy.No. 102,'10311,10312, 103/3 and^{'1 't1} situated at Jayabheri Enctave, phase-ll, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District as illegal, null,

¶21

¶22

¶23

void, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to release the power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under section^'l5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondents 2 to 5 to release the power supply to the property bearing Plot No. 36 and 36-4 admeasuring 466.67 Sq yds each totar admeasuring 933.34 Sq yds in Sy.No. 102,1O3/1,10312,103/3 and^.t11 situated at Jayabheri Enclave, Phase - ll, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VANAM SAI LOKESH

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: AGP FOR ENERGY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN BEDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA'}

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.3496^{of 2O25}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard Sri Vanam Sai Lokesh,^{learned counsel}

¶35

appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner,learned Assistant} Government Pteader^{for Energyappearing on behalf of} respondent No.1, Sri^{N. SreedharReddy,learned Standing} Counsel for^{TGSPDCL,appearing on behalf ofrespondent} Nos,2 to 5 and Sri^{G. MadhusudhanReddy, learned} Standing Counsel^{forGreater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation appearing^{on behalf of respondenlNo'5'}

¶36

2 The^petitioner approached^{the Court seeking prayer} as under:

¶37

"...to issue an appropriate Writ,^{order or direction more} particularly one in the nature of^{Writ of Mandamus} declaring the action^{of the Respondetns in not releasing} the^power supply^{to the Petitioner's property bearing} Plot No.36 and 36-4^{admeasuring 466.67Sq' Yds each} total admeasuring 933.34^{Sq. yds. in Sy.No.102, 103/1,} LO3/2, tO3/3 and 111^{situatedat JayabheriEnclave,} Phase - II, Gachibowli^{Village, SerilingampallyMandal,} Rangareddy^{Districtas illegal, null, void, arbitrary and} consequently^{direct the Respondents2 to 5 to release}

SN. J wP 1,196 2025

)

I I

the^power supply without insisting for occupancy certificate and to^pass such other order...".

¶43

It is represented by the^{learned counsel appearingon} behalf of the^petitioner that the subject^{issue in the present writ} petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 31.01.2025^passed in W.P.No.2180 of 2025 and^hence,the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner in W.P.No.2180 of 2025 dated 31.01.2025.

¶44

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of^the respondent Nos.2 to 5 does not dispute the^{said submis'sion} made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of^the petitioner.

¶45

Bringing the said submissions of both the^learned counsel on record, and for the reasons alike^{in the above} referred order^passed by this Court in^{W.P.No.218O of} 2O25 dated 31.01.2025, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondent^{Nos.2 to 5} to consider the request of the^petitioner to^provide electricity connection supply to the^{petitioner's property} bearing Plot No.36 and 36-A admeasuring 466.67^{Sq. Yds} each total admeasuring 933.34 Sq.^yds. in Sy.No.1O2,

--l

SN- J wt' 1.196 20?i

tlgla, Lo3l2,^{LOgtS and 111 situated atJavabheri} Enclave, Phase -^{II,GachibowliVillage, Serilingampally} Mandal,^{Rangareddy District, upon thepetitioner} complying^{with the requiredterms and conditions as per} rules in force,^{and upon the petitioner furnishingan} undertaking^{to produce the occupancycertificate from the} Municipal^{Corporation concerned,within areasonable} period as prescribed^{by the respondent Authority'and if} produced bY the no such^{occuPancycertificate is} petitioner within^{such prescribed time' it is open to the} to 4 to^{take aPProPriate} -^{action' in} respondent^Nos.2 accordance^{to law.} However,^{there shalt be no order as to}

¶51

costs.

¶52

Themiscellaneousapplications,ifanypending'shallstand

¶53

To,

¶54

closed.

¶55

/ffRUE^COPY//	NT ^{REGI STRAR} SD ASSt ,.L. LA^KSHMIBABU ECTION^OFFICER
	Department'^secretariat'

¶56

'^{l!:",:#3i'31*::?'f:?#b"::gBboi!:'""*:} P owe^{r Distrib utio n com p a nv}

¶57

:: #3is3'*?3i^{l?:'ft?f"?:i:T:} Powe r^{Di stributi o n}

¶58

, II}: "",yJHil"f, gi:: ?"J; 3,?," 3ll3't

¶59

' u*^*1"J,s:x+:P, " " "?B:'[ft^il

¶60

.Il:"?T53,[:;:'i::f; i*"#,i51l'"'t"]3if""JJl'i"*erDistributioncompanv

¶61

'",.ff;i'i1r"?Y5:8::8::f;^{i6"?i"{lr8i'r:i"T:3'ffi3&"rDistribution}

¶62

¶63

. :* :ff nm:t lq "#iffi^{Rlx,H?p5,ir,!eroo'atio n' ro wn}

¶64

: :,"^{co sR, _:;;sil:[.j,T;.;} 9. one cc to sRl c.MADH.,.sr,"";:::"^rux loPuc]rGSpDcL [opuc] G HMc roPucl

¶65

" ;ye,m.,r"",+,^.#: ffi :T ffi :J.':::R ' ' "Yr^{I 'uur} lor the state of Telangana at

¶66

1 1. Two cD copies

BsR Yal

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610212025

ORDER

WP.No.3496 of 2025

11-t
<br>{{ rE3 M ,)
.ai
t
t
ItA I HED

¶77

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE,

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

C'\d,,<br>$^
-,&r,

Arjun Somireddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Somireddy 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

Mohammed Khaja Baseeruddin Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

M/s Vinayak Steels Ltd, rep.by its Vice President Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited

Ms Agarwal Foundaries Private Limited Vs State Load Dispatch Centre

Ukam Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Ukam Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Kakarla Ranjith Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana