Disposed

Thoom Chandra Shekhar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025WP/5116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of an electricity connection. The court directed respondents to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within a week regarding a 50KW load for a residential building.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 2 to 7 to consider the petitioner's application for 50KW electricity connection and pass appropriate orders within one week.

Thoom Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERAEAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE^{TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N^{NO:5 116 0F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thoom Chandra^{Shekhar Rao, S/o T UmaplathyRao'} {9e' -59 .years^Occ' enoineei. nyo^{H.r.ro".i_Gali+,'Fotruo.oqSurvey No.76, Madhapur (v),} Sefiiingampattv^{(M), Ranga Reddy District, T S'}

"'PFTITIONER

AND

' The State^{of Telangana,Rep by its.Prrncipal Secretary Power and Energy} Department Secretariat,^{Hyderabad-500022'}

¶13

The Southem^{Power Distribution Companyof Telangana StateLtd' Rep. by} fr,ranrginiDli""to'.^{n5ving its Corp6rateoffice at 6-1-50,}

¶14

its Chairman "nO Mint ComPound,^{HYderabad500063'}

¶15

Chief General^{Managei,Commercial Mint Compound TGSPDCL' Hyderabad}

¶16

The Superintending^{Engineer,/ Operation/Baniarahills Circle TGSPDC L'} Banjarahills

¶17

The Divisional^{Engineer, /Operation/Ban.iarahillsDivision TGSPDC L'} Hyderabad

¶18

The Assistant^{Divisional Engineer,/ Operation/ JubliehillsSub - Division} TGSPDC L, HYderabad

¶19

The Assistant^{Engineer, / SE OP i GHYD North/ AE Madhapur' TGSPDCL'} Hyderabad

¶20

The Greater^{Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation' Rep' by the'Commissioner'} Near Tank^{Bund,HYderabad}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court may- be} ;i;;;^{t'"*e writ order oi oir"ition more particularly one in,the natureof WRIT} bi H,fnf.f^{Onfr71US directingthe respondents2 to 7 to provide electricity connection} srpprv to^{1No. Non_Dom""ti"rolo of 50KW,thusmaking total load of 50KW} col-n6"tion to^{the Residentiat Buitding, in H.No.1-68i14,PlotNo.69,in survey} No.io,--tot"i^{admeasurinjioo.oo "sq Yards, situated at Madhapur(V)'}

¶23

Serilingampally^{(M), FLangaReddy District,T.S., boundedby North. Plot No.70} South. Plot^{No.6B East.} 30'Wide Road^{West. Plot} No.83. Without^{insisting upon} occupancy certificate from the 8th respondent by holding that the^refusalto provide electricity connection to the above referred premises is illegal and arbitrary

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the <;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 7 to provide electricity connection Supply to 1No. NonDomestic load of 50KW, thus making total load of 50KW Connection to the Residential Building, in H.No.1-68/14, Plot No.69, in Survey No.76, total admeasuring 266.66 {iq Yards, situated at Madhapur (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District, T.S., bounded by North. Plot No.70; South. Plot No.6B; East. 30' Wide Roacl; West. Plot No.B3. Without insisting upon occupancy certificate from the Bth respondent pending disposal of main writ petition and may deem fit and proper in 1.he circumstance of the case.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. THAKUR ROOPA SINGH

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: AGP FOR ENERGY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent no.8: SRI c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY SC FOR GHMC

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.5116 of 2025

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

. Heard Smt. Thakur Roopa Singh, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 7 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing on behalf of respondent No.8.

¶35

The petitioner approached the Court seeking^prayer as under:

¶36

"...to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents 2 to 7 to provide electricity connection Supply to 1No. Non-Domestic load of 50KW thus making total load of 50KW Connection to the Residential Building in H.No.1-68/14, Plol No.69, in Survey No.76, total admeasuring 266.66 Sq. Yards situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, bounded by North: Plot No.70; South: Plot No.68; East: 30'Wide Road;^West: Plot^No. 83. Without insisting upon occupancy certificate^from

$/P 5 tl6 2025

the Btr respondent by holding that the reFusal to provide electricity connection to the above referred premises is illegal and arbitrary and pass

¶41

It is thr: specific case of the petitioner that, the petitioner applied for release of electricity supply for 1 No. Non-Domestic load of 50KW, thus making total load of 50 KW to the petitioner's Residential Building in H.No.1-68/14, Plot No.69, in Survey No.76, total admeasuring 266.66 Sq. Yards, situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally (M), under GHM(1, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State and in response to the 1 said apptication, the 3'd respondent addressed a lettelr dated 05.09.2024 to the petitioner to pay charges of Rs.2,48,892/- and accordingly petitioner paid the said amount but the respondents denied to provide electricity connection stating that the petitioner must produce occupancy certificate from the Bth respondent. Agqrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶42

Learned ,:ouns€l appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 7 to consider petitioner's application and pass appropriate ordr:rs as per rules in force.

wP 5l 16 2025

, I

Learned Standing^{Counselappearing on behalf of the} respondent^{Nos.2 to 7 does not dispute the said .submission} made by the^{learned counsel appearingon behalf of the} petitioner.

¶48

¶49

Taking into consideration^{the factsand} circumstances of the^{case and the submissions madeby} both the learned counsel^{on record, the writ petitionis} disposed of directing^{the respondentNos' 2 to 7to} consider and^pass appropriate^{ordersas per rules in force} and in accordance to^{law, on petitioner'sapplicationdated} 30.08.2024 seeking^{electricity connection for release of} electricity suppty for^{INo' Non-Domesticload of 5OKW,} thus making total toad^of50 .^{KW to thesubject} Residential Building in^{H.No.1-68/14,Plot No'69, in} Survey No.76, total^{admeasuring 266'66 Sq' Yards,} situated at Madhapur^{Village, Serilingampally(M), under} GHMC, Ranga Reddy^{Dastrict, TetanganaState, withina} period of one (O1) week from^{the date of receipt of a copy} of this order duly considering^{the permissionvide Permit} No.4 1O1IGH MC I s,LP I^{2O2}-BP, dated 27'lO'2O23issued}

¶50

¶51

wP 5tt6 2025

¶52

by Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally^{Zone, GHMC,} Hyderabad in favour of the^{petitioner. However, there}

¶53

shal! be no order as to costs.

¶54

The miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending, shall stand}

To,

closed.

SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPYtt \1.- -

¶59

"l^{SEcfloN oFFlcER}

¶60

The Principal Se<;retary^{Powerand EnergyDepartment Secretariat,} Hyderabad-5000:22.

¶61

The Chairman and Managing Director Southern^{PowerDistribution.Company} of Telangana State Ltd,^h-aving its^{Corporateoffice at 6-1-50,Mint Compound,} Hyderabad 500063.

¶62

Chief General [\Ianager, Commercial^{Mint CompoundTGSPDC L, Hyderabad}

¶63

The Superintending Engineer, / Operation/Banjarahills^{Circle TGSPDCL,} Banjarahills

¶64

The Divisional Errgineer, iOperation/^{Banjarahills Division TGSPDCL'} Hyderabad

¶65

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, / Operation/^{JubliehillsSub - Division} TGSPDC L, Hydt:rabad

¶66

The Assistant Engineer, / SE OP / GHYD^{NorthiAE Madhapur, TGSPDCL'} Hyderabad

¶67

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation,Near Tank} Bund, Hyderabacl

¶68

One CC to SRl. THAKUR ROOPA SINGH^Advocate IOPUC]

¶69

'10.One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TGSPDCL IOPUC]

¶70

11.One CC to SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]

¶71

Two CCs to GP^trOR ENERGY ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

13.Two CD Copies KKS

CC TODAY

l l

HIGH COURT

DATED:2 0t02t2OZs

ORDER

E S ATe
C7';.
q t
J
c
C)
0 5 l{l;i 2[?5
a
^-
ci-\lc
'>--'

¶81

WP.No.S116 of 2O2S

¶82

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶83

8f'e$
qo-
a,,r

Thoom Chandra Shekhar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thoom Chandra Shekhar Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Syed Raheem Vs The State of Telangana

Mohmmed Abdul Qayyum Ansari Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Baquar Ali Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthoju Vishnu Vardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Vudem Kamalakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

K. Srikanth Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation