Disposed

Andhra Pradesh Association of the Deaf v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2026WA/371/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against dismissal of a petition challenging mutation of an electricity consumer connection in favour of the fourth respondent society. The court held the statutory Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003 was the proper forum and set aside the direction to approach a civil court.

What did the court decide?

Direction to approach civil court set aside; appellant granted liberty to approach the CGRF, which is to decide expeditiously per law.

Andhra Pradesh Association of the Deaf Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ ]

¶2

I i I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL^. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTTCE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶8

WR]TAPP EAL NO| 371 0F 2026

¶9

writ Appeal under clause 1s of the Letters patent prefened Against the order Dated 21-0 1-2026 in W.P.No 20125 of 2fl24 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶10

Andhra Pradesh Association of the Deaf, Regd. No. M2 13so Fasri, Affiliated to the All lndia Federation of the Deaf. Nevi Dethi. Office noo. r.i" i_7i7 Model School for Deaf, Vl Pedda Amber pet, Hayith ruagar tttanOaf, nangf Reddy District, Rep. by Venkat Reddy

¶11

...APPELLANT/PETIT]ONER lN W.P.No.20125OF 2024

¶12

AND

¶13

1^{glrtg of Telang-qna, Repby Principalsecretary,(Energy) Hyderabad,TS.} 2. chairman and Managing Elirector,'Terangana sidte sp"6bL, tr,lini co,i,pouna, Hyderabad

¶14

Divisional E1rS-lneerL Sguthgm Power Distribution Company Limited,

¶15

Turkayamjal, R.R District, Telanqana.

¶16

M/s..Telanga-.1g Wg[are Associa-tion, forthe Deaf Regd No. 1321/2016 7-55, Madhurapuri/NearKonarkTheaterDilshuknagar/SardornagarRanga^--' Reddy/Telanganer/lndia. Rep. by its secretary-Venkata Rai.resn Beiramkonda,

¶17

...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS lN W.P.No.2012SOF 2024

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 preased to suspend the operation of the order daled 21 .01 .2026 passed in w.p.No.20125 of 2Q24 pending disposal of the writ Appeal pass necessary orders to rectify the irregular mutation in respect of 4th Respondent Society.

i I

N o-.20F 2026

Petition under Section^{1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant} stay on the Mutation orders dated^{05.01.2017 passedin favourof 4th Respondent} Society in respect of consumer service^{No.631801052by the 3rd respondent} pending disposal of the present Writ Appeal.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRABHAKAR^{SRIPADAFOR SRI DURGA} PRASAD KOTAMRAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR^{REDDY,SC FOR} TSSPDCL

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, SENIOR^COUNSEL FOR SRI GOKUL RAMA RAO

¶30

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶32

THB HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶35

WRIT APPEAL No.371 of 2026

¶36

DATED: 01.04.2026

¶37

Betwecn:

¶38

Andhra Pradesh Association of the Deaf, Rep., b1,' Venkat Reddy, Hayath Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

Appellant

¶40

AND

¶41

State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary,^(Energy), I{yderabad, [S and 3 others.

¶42

... Rcspondents

¶43

JUDGNIt,N'I':

¶44

tlcard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel^{represents Mr. Durga} Prasad Ktxarnraju, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.^{SreedharReddy,} learnetl Standing Counsel for Telangana Southern Power Distribution^Contpanl' Linrited appcars fbr respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri J.^{Prabhakar. learned Senior} Counsel rcpresents Sri Gokul Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent^No.4

¶45

Narne ol' respondent No.4 was mutated by the respondent^Electricity (ionrpanl' bl irnpugncd order dated 05.01.2017 in place of rtarne of the appcllarrr. r.rhich aggricved it to approach the leamed writ Courr.^{l'hc writ}

¶46

¶47

¶48

petition was dismissed with libefty to the appellant to raise the issues before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The learned writ court also took into note that as per the averments in the u,rit petition, the appellant is the only surviving member of the Managing comrnittee ol the Association ad doubted the resolution produced by hirn to r cctily the name of the appeltant Association in the records. Being aggrievcd, the appellanl has preferred this appeal.

¶49

on being specifically askcd. lcarned Standing counsel for the rcspondent Electricity cornpany has categ.ricalh subrnitted that the consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGI(F ) has bccn consriruted under the Etectricity Act, 2003 to deal with such disputes.

¶50

The disputc raiscd bv thc appellant requires determination on issues of fact also. Leainecl writ ('oLrrr. hoscvcr. relcqated the appellant to approach the competent courl ol cir il .jurisdiction. In the process, it has also made certain observations. we are .l'thc r ie rr tlrat il rl-re Electricity Act, 2003 provides for a statutory lorurl to raisc thc qr irr rrrrc.: in rclation to transfer of the electricity connection in the narnr' ol anothcr f erl). rhe right course tor the appellant was to approach the concernr:d ('(iRI: irr 'espect of the said dispute. Therefore, the impugned direction gir i.g liher.rr to tht^.rppcllant to raise these issues befbre the competent courl of ci,. il .iurisriicrion is sct asicle. Since the appellant is granted liberry to approach C(iRIi takine all grounds on law and lact available to it, any observations touchirrg rhc ,rc.its .f' the casc ol the parties in the impugned

¶51

¶52

¶53

j udgment would not influence the forum in taking an independent decision in accordance with law. If the complaint is filed by the appellant before^the CGRF, the leamed forum would endeavour to decide it expeditiously^afterdue notice to the concerned^party in accordance with law.^{Needlessto say} respondent No.4^would also be entitled to take all^{such objections againstthe} claim made by the appcllant

¶54

The instant appeat is disposed of in the aforesaid^{manner. There shallbe} no order as to costs

¶55

Miscellaneous applications, ilany pending, shall stand^closed.

¶56

. SD/. A.V,S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶57

//TRUE COPY/I

¶58

EGTION OFFICER

¶59

Telangana,^TS

¶60

To 1 The Princioal Secretary, (Energy) Hydelabad' i. fne Cfrairman^{and ManagingDirector' I elang} a SPDCL, Mint Compo und, H yde

¶61

3 Engrn ee r, Southe rn Power Distribution^{Company Limited'} Turkayamla I,R R District, Telangana.

¶62

1. ry Venkata Ramesh Bellamkonda' Association fo r the Deaf^{RegdNo.'1321/2016} f

¶63

Konark Theater

¶64

5.6 FOR ENERGY,^{High Court for} t Hvderabad. [OUTI iji""'btiJshr^{r.r.SneeoHaREDDY,sc FoRT^s-sPDcL[oPUc]} ffi Ed i" Siii^{coxuL nnun neo, Adrocate[oPUc]}

¶65

II7 Two CD^CoPies

¶66

PS K. TKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110412026

JUDGMENT

WA.No.371 of 2026

( a R T r{[ s
',:, :>,
r'.)
oz nnM
)i,
.r.i
{t
i{.itfo lt

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

(9[r"v'^(

Andhra Pradesh Association of the Deaf v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh Association of the Deaf v. 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

M/s. Btl Logistics Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

Sai Srinivasa Pharmacy Vs The Superintendent

Yadagiri Building Material Suppliers Vs The Superintendent of Central Tax

M/s. Udeva Preci Steel Products Mfg. Co., Vs The Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board Vs Polampelli Raju

M/s Venkatamma Enterprises Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited