Disposed

Rathlavath Srinu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WP/3951/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus directing TSSPDCL to grant domestic electricity connections to their houses in Ilapur Thanda Village after their applications were rejected for want of proper documents. Standing counsel undertook to consider fresh applications; the Court directed petitioners to file fresh applications with requisite documents and respondents to decide within a week.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rathlavath Srinu Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWELFTHDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{MRSJUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETIT^{ION NO:3esl oF 2025}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rathlavath^{Srinu, S/o. RLaxma,} .Age^{about 28 vears' Occ Business'} F/o. H.No.4-10sle,^{rilpui r;Ini',' ri'6" inanda Ameenpur' Sangareddv'} Telangana.

¶10

L. Madhu,^{W/o.L. Jayaram, Aged about 40 years' Occ'Bustness' Fl/o' H No'4-}

¶11

6b;'iliili inanoa' r ripuiihanta, Ameenpui' sangareddv' Telangana'

¶12

Guda^{Vishnu Kumar, S/o. G.V Durgesh, Aged ?bout 17 Y9?lt'} " 6;;. gushesi, nyo.-H.rtro+-s, llapur Thanda' llapur Thanda Ameenpur' SangareddY,^Telangana.

¶13

Bankala^{Sunitha, W/o BJyotheeshwarAoed about 39 years'} occ. Househoro,^{nyo.'"n r.6 d-git' iE.. llapur ihanda,llapur Thanda} AmeenPur, SangareddY,^Telangana

¶14

Aoed about 28 Years'

¶15

5 Kaooeta iii[I-iious"wife Vaidehi,^{Fl/o. W/o H No K. Venkatarami4-7312/1A'} Reddy,llapur Th"anda, llaPur^Thanda Ameenpur,^{SangareddY'Telangana'} Naik, Aoed about 32 Years'

¶16

6 Karamsi tiic." ftousewife,^{Anithamma, Fl/o. W/o H.No K 4-491 Shankar18/A'} llapur fhanda, llaPur^Thanda Ameenpur,^{SangareddY,Telangana'}

¶17

7 Gooal Janu^{Vadatyavat, S/o. Janu Rediya Vadatya.vat'Ag-ed about 56 years'} il5.'h;,.t"s;;ii-mb.^{rl'uo+-slt ttapui Thanda' Ilapur ThandaAmeenpur'} SangareddY,^Telangana.

¶18

I Gantinaoalli^{Harika' D/o. G. Madhava Rao'} ..Aged^{about 51 years'} #;:"U5l:;;;-ito.^{n rl..+-+a,irapurrhanda'llapur rhandaAmeenpur'} SangareddY,^Telangana.

¶19

I Dilio Kumar, S/o.^{Singhasan,Aged about35} -years'^{Occ'Business'} "d'"i nlt ri:os7' i, rrrp,i,. liaioi,^"rr'p'i ihanda Ameenpur'^sansareddv' Telangana

¶20

10.Thota Sudhakar,^{Sio. Thota Ramaiah' Aged about43 vears'Occ' Unknown'} R/o. H.No.4-45,^{llapur'ih;;;'-'ii;b;t'rn'naa Am'eenpur'Sangareddv'} Telangana

¶21

1 I . Y. Asha,^{W/o. Y. Ramesh, Aged. abo91 34 vears' OccHousewife'} Ft/o. H.No.4-35/7/r,^{rraiurii-iinii,rrrp* Thanda-Ameenpur,Sangareddy'} Telangana

¶22

l2.Boooudi^{Madhavi, W/o Boppudi Ramesh. Aqed about 35years'} occ Housewife,^{nyo n'ilb.+Ii6'i'liiapuifhanOa' ll-apurThanda Ameenpur'} SangareddY,^Telangana

¶23

Peravali Srinu,^{S/o. P. Satyanarayana'Age-d-about45 vears'Occ Business'} Fr/o. H.^{No. 4-45tN7,rripiiiinl'ioj,rijp"ri rnino,Ameenpur'Sansareddv'} Telangana

¶24

...PETITIONERS

¶25

ANO

¶26

1 The State of^{Telangana,Repby its Principal Secretary Power and Energy} Oepartment^{Secret-ariat Hyderabad}

¶27

Southern Power^{Distribution CompanyLtd of Telangana' Rep'by its'Chairman} il;"fu';naoi;;oitLtifitsspo6[^{c'bunoFloor cdrporate orrice Mint} Compound^HYderabad

¶28

3.southernPowerDistributionCompanyLtdofTelangana.Repbyits" ilil;;i;;iiiig rnslneei operatidns Sansareddv^District

¶29

4 The Divisional^{Engineer, OperationDPE TSSPDCL Patancheru Sangareddy} District

¶30

The Assistant^{Divisional Engineer, Operations TSSPDCL PatancheruRural} SangareddY^District

¶31

The Tahsildar,^{Ameenpur Mandal Sangareddy District}

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat tn the} circumstances^{statedinthe affidavit filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue^{a Writ, Order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT OF^{MANDAI\4USdeclaringthe action of the respondentsin rejecting the} application^{of the Petitionersfor grant of DomesticPower Supplyto the House} bearing Nos.^{4-109/3,4-69, 4-9, 4-g4t1t}' 4-73t2t1A'4-49t 18lA'4-311' 4'44'2-} 6311,4-45,4-35t711,4-164^{and 4.451N7 admeasuring 81, 158,100,167.22,134.5'} 120, 161 ,^{12O, 12O, 120,76,128'33 and 142 Sq yds respectively constructed in Sy} NollgSituatedllapurThandaVillage,Ameenpurtvlandal,sangareddyDistrictas illegalarbitrarydiscriminatoryunconstitutionalandviolativeofArticle,l4and300A oftheConstitutionoflndiaconsequentlySetasidethesamebydirectingthe Respondents2to5toprovideDomesticElectricityconnectiontothePetitioners HousebearingNos.4-109/3,4-69,4-9,4-g4t1tB'4'731211A'4'4911BlA'4-311'444,2-6311,4.45,4.3517t1,4-164^{and 4-45lAl7 admeasuring81} '^{158,100,167.22'} 134.5, 12O,^{161,12O,12O' 120,76,128'33and '142 Sq yards respectively in Sy No} 1 19 situated llapur^{Thanda Village,Ameenpur tvlandal' Sangareddy District'}

¶34

lA NO: 1 oF²⁰²⁵

¶35

Petition under^{Section1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct} therespondentstoprovideDomesticElectricityconnectiontothepetitioners HousebearingNo.sprovideDomesticElectricityconnectiontothepetitioners housebearingNos.4-109/3,4-69,4-9'4-g4t1lB'4-73t2t1A'4-491181A'4-311'444,2-63t1,4-45,4-35t7t1,4-164^{and 4-45tvt7 constructedin Sy No 119 situated} llapur Thanda^{Village, Ameenpur Mandal, SangareddyDistrict pendingdisposal of} the writ^petition.

¶36

Counsel for^{the Petitioners:SRIRAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY}

¶37

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1:AGPFORENERGY}

¶38

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'2 to 5: SRI N' SREEDHAR REDDY'SC}

¶39

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'6:AGPFORREVENUE}

¶40

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶41

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶42

WRIT PETITION N o 3951 OF 2o2 5

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Heard Sri Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, Iearned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on Oetrait of the respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to S and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.

¶45

The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶46

".......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the application of the Petitioners for grant of Domestic power Supply to the House bearing Nos. 4-tO9/3, 4-69, 4-9, 4-94/t/8, 4- 7312/rA, 4-49/!8/A, 4-3/L, 4-44, 2-63/L, 4_45, 4_35/7/1, 4-164 and 4-45/A/7 admeasuring 81, 158, LOO, t6t.2Z, 734.5, t2O, L6r, r20, L2O, !20, 76, 1.28.33 and t42 Sq.yds respectively constructed in Sy.No.119 situated Ilapur Thanda Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy

¶47

¶48

District as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory, u nconstitution a I and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents 2 to 5 to provide Domestic Electricity connection to the Petitioners House bearing Nos. 4109/3 4-69, 4-9, 4-94lUB, 4-73/2ltA, 4-49/18/A, 4-3/1, 4-44 263/1, 4-45, 4-35/7/t, 4-t64 and 4-45/A/7 admeasuring 81, 158, tOO, 167,22, 134.5, tz0, t6t, L2O, 12O, t20, 76, 128, 33 and 142 Sq.yards respectively in Sy.No 119 situated Ilapur Thanda Village Ameenpur Mandal Sangareddy District and to pass...."

¶49

It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners made applications for grant of Domestic Power Supply to the House bearing Nos. 4-109/3, 4-69, 4-9, 4-94/1/8, 4-73/2llA, 4-49/LB/A, 4-31L, 4-44, 2-63/r, 4-4s, 4-3s/7/t, 4-164 and 4-45/A/7 admeasuring 81, 158, l0O, 167.22, 134.5, l2O, t6l, L20, L2O, L2O, 76, 128.33 and L42 Sq.yds respectively constructed in Sy.No.119 situated Ilapur Thanda Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District, but however. the said applications of the petitioners had been rejected on the ground that petitioners had not enclosed the proper documents. Aggrieved by the said action of the^respondents, the petitioners filed the^{present Writ Petition.}

¶50

¶51

¶52

Learned standing counsel appearang on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 upon instructions submits that in view of the fact hat the petitioners' applications are not supported by the relevant documents as per the Rules in force as on date, hence the petitioners' applications had been rejected.

¶53

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 further submits that upon petitioners make a fresh applicataons duly enclosing all the requisite documents as mandated under the rules in force as on date, the respondent Nos,3 to 5 would duly consider the same in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶54

6, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the learned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶55

7. Takin into consi deration:

¶56

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstbnces of the case

¶57

¶58

b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to S.

¶59

The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petationers to make a fresh applications duly enclosing all the requisite documents as mandated under the rules in force as on date within a period of one (O1) week form the date of receipt of copy of this order, seeking Domestic^power Supply to the petitioners' House bearing Nos. 4-109/9, 4-69, 4-9, 4-94/LlB, 4-73/2/tA, 4-49/L8/A, 4-3/L, 4-44t 2- 6311,4-45,4-351711-,4-L64 and 4-45/A/7 admeasurang 81, 158, ,,OO, L67.22, L34.St tZO, L6L, L2O, LzO, l2O, 76, 128.33 and L42 Sq.yds respectively constructed in Sy.No.119 situated Ilapur Thanda Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District and upon the petitioners making a fresh applications duly enclosing all the requisite documents as mandated under the rules in force as

¶60

¶61

on date, on receipt of the same, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall consider the same in accordance to law within a period of one (O1) week thereon and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners on the said applications of the petitioners.

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶63

¶64

SDIN. SRIHARI S^. ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i-:

¶65

oFFrcER

¶66

i "tsecrron

¶67

'1 . The Princi pal Secretary Power and Energy Depa ent Secretariat The State of Telang ana, Hyderabad

¶68

2 The Chai rma n cum Managing Director TSSPDCL Ground Floor Co rporate Office Mint Compound Hyderab ad Southem Power Distribution Co mpany Ltd of Telangana

¶69

3.7 he Superintendin g Engineer Operations Sangareddy District, Southern

¶70

Power Distribution Company Ltd of Tel ang ana,

¶71

1. The Divisional Engineer, Operation DpET District SSPDCL Patancheru Sangareddy

¶72

5 The Assistant Divisionar Engineer, operations Tss'DCL patancheru Rurar Sangareddy District

¶73

1. The T-ahsildar, Ameenpur Mandal Sangareddy District

¶74

To,

¶75

One CC to Sri Ramav'aram Chandras6ekar d"OOv, Advocate IOPUCI 8. Two CCs to Gp for Energy, High C"rri f;iilEijt'" ot rlrangjii,-ai, Hyderabad [OUTi

¶76

9n"^{CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy,} SC IOPUCI 10. Two CC to The Gp for Revenue, iiigh i"i,i'f; tne State of Telangana, at HyderabadlOUTl

¶77

Two CD Copies -

TJ GJP dtp

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212025

ORDER

WP.No.3951 of 2025

1 r{e STA r e
\
c
Z 7 tirAy 2U25 a
t
o Er t'!

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶85

@ CHE
nr' p{lrt

Rathlavath Srinu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rathlavath Srinu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sudheer Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Badavath Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

Ratnam Ramdas Vs The State of Telangana, Department of Forest

Kethavath Kamli Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Bhimanapalli Anasuya Vs The State Commission for Women

B. Sudhakar Reddy, Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority