Disposed

Sri. Rajesh Jain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WP/43689/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of domestic and commercial electricity connection applications by TSSPDCL. On the Standing Counsel's submission that a fresh application with relevant documents would be considered, the court disposed of the writ petition directing a fresh temporary-connection application and consideration within fixed timelines, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file fresh application for temporary connection within one week; respondents 2 and 3 to consider it in accordance with law and pass orders within one week thereafter; no cos

Sri. Rajesh Jain Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 43689 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. Rajesh Jain, S/o. Late Jawahar Lal Jain, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. House No.8-2-324110, PIot No.9 and 10, Green Valley, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 034.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Energy Department, Electricity, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electricity Operations, TSSPDCL, Greenlands, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electricity Operaiions, TSSPDCL, Greenlands, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

The Assistant Engineer, Electricity Operations, TSSPDCL, Greenlands, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TVANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly of the 3rd and 4th Respondents, rejecting the Domestic Electricity Supply Connection Application Dt.0211112022 vide Registration No. NR90222754819 with endorsement "Rejected as Existing Premises is Not Domestic" and further rejecting the Commercial Electricity Supply Connection Application Dt.2511112022 vide Registration No. NR90222770782 with endorsement "Rejected as lnsufficient Documents" as arbitrary, illegal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (Prayer amended as per Court Order dt: 24.09.2024 in lA.No.1/2024)

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to accept Application Dt.o2l1il2o22 and further direct the 3rd and 4th Respondent to immediately provide Domestic power Supply and connection along with the N/eter to the watchman room on the Land admeasuring 300 Sq. Yds., forming part of D.No.6-3-1jg111 TO 6t1t3, Begumpet. Greenlands, Hyderabad, in Revenue Sy.No.214l5 to g later assigned as TS No.3i1 , 312, 18 and 19 of ward No.91, Block D abutting to Brij rarang land of the petitioners Vendor on North and adjacent to Green Lands Guest House situated at Khairtabad village and ft4andal, Hyderabad, Telangana, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.KIREET Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR ENERGy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WPTT P ETITI r)N n La.A 89 0F ) o2 )

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Sri D.Kireet, lgarned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶24

2 The Detitioner aooroache the Court see kino oraver

¶25

as under:

¶26

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly of the 3'd and 4th Respondents, rejecting the Domestic Electricity Supply Connection Application Dt.Ozltl/2022 vide Registration No.NR9O222754819 with endorsement "Rejected as Existing Premises is Not Domestic" and further rejecting the Commercial Electricity Supply Connection Application D1.25/ lI/2022 vide Registration No. N RgO222 77 07 82 with endorsement "Rejected as Insufficient Documents" as arbitrary, illegal and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case."

I
i

SN,J Wp 43689 2022

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 300 Sq. yards, forming part of D.No.6-3-1191/1 to 6/l/3 in Sy.Nos.214l5 to 9 later assigned as TS No.3/1 ,3/2, lB and 19 of Ward No.91, BIock-D, Begumpet, Greenlands, Hyderabad and the petitioner applied for a domestic electricity connection with meter for the watchman's room of the petitioner,s premises vide Registratlon No. NR902227548L9 dated 02.11.2022, and paid the required fee amount of Rs.1,645.50 vide D.D.No.1537279432 dated 02.1t.2022. However, the said application was rejected by the respondents on L4.11.2022 with the endorsement "Rejected as existing premises is not domestic". Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that initially, the petitioner had applied for service connection under domestic category and the same was rejected by the respondent authority on the ground that the existing subject premises is not domestic, subsequenily, the petitioner again applied vide application dated 25.It.2022 for service connection under non-domestic and commercial

¶32

¶33

SN,J Wp_43689 2022 category and |.lra ?rrzl lraa nr lt, *lra resDonde t authorities beca use the Detitioner fai^{led to} enclose e relevant docume nts as Der the rul in force rn suDDo of the Detitioner a DI ication.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of^the respondent Nos.2 to 4 further submits that upon the^petitioner making a fresh application seeking temporary connection^{with all} the relevant documents as^per the rules in force,^the respondents would consider the same in accordance to^law.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned^Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent^{Nos.2 to 4.}

¶36

Takino in consideration l

¶37

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the^case and,

¶38

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4,

¶39

¶40

¶41

SN,J Wp_43689_2022 The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh apptication to the respondent Nos,2 and 3 seeking temporary connection in respect of the subject premises i.e., forming part of D.No.6_3_ LL9L/L to 6/t/3 in Sy.No.214 /5 to g later assigned as TS No.3/1, 3/2, Lg and 19, Ward No.91, Block-D, Begumpet, Greenlands, Hyderabad with all the relevant documents as per the rules in force within a period of one(l) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the petitioner making said apptication, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a period of one(1) week thereafter. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶43

SD/.S, MALL]KARJUNA RAO //'RUE coPY// []r----=--- --+ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V^'SECTION OFFICER

¶44

\ V^'SECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Principal Secretary Energy Department, Electricity, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶45

The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electricity Operations, TSSpDCL, Greenlands, Hyderabad, Telangana. J. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electricity Operations, TSSPDCL, Greenlands, Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Electricity Operations, TSSPDCL, Greenlands, Hyderabad, Telangana. 5 . One CC to SRI D.KIREET, Advocate [OPUC] 6 . Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7 , One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL IOPUCI 8 Jwo^CDCopies PSK. fro"n CJP -.1\

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212025

ORDER

WP.No.43689 of 2022

1 E 14 14:
Y
$
oo 25 FEB zffi z
.a
I
-t:-"..----.-1/lirl -(.) /

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

a I .W I

Sri. Rajesh Jain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajesh Jain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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