Dismissed

Valladas Raghavulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2026WP/28434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition over disconnection of an electricity supply connection to petitioner's property at Kothagudem. Counsel sought permission to withdraw; the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to address respondent No.4 for restoration of supply. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to address respondent No.4 for power connection restoration; no order as to costs.

Valladas Raghavulu Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

t34427

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶7

WRIT PET|TION NO: 28434 OF 2OZs

¶8

Between:

¶9

Valladas Raghavulu,. S/o Bhushana.m,.Aged 58 years, occ- Business, R/o viswanadha colony, Kothagudem, Bhadralri xotrjgud"lr-o[trict.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1- The State of.Telang.ana, rep by its Principal Secretary (Power and Energy) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Northern Power Distribution Corporatign Limited (NPDCL), Rep by its chairman and lManaging Director, Vibyut Bhavan, wiil.tarag-;t6, Hanmakonda.

¶14

3- The Divisional Engineer,. Electrical (Operations), The Northern power Distribution Corporation LimiteO, Xdtn'agudem, enaOraOii koifraguOem District.

¶15

The Assistant Divisiona.l{gineer, The Norther Power Distribution Company of relangana - Lrmited (TStdpDCL), Laxmidevipaili vitdg;; ehidraori Kothagudem District.

¶16

Samba Purnachander Rao, S/o Venkatesham, Aged 6g years, occ- Business, R/o H.No.6-3152, Pedda Bazar, Kothagudem.

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 pass an order or direction or writ in the nature o1 Mandamus duly declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in high handedly disconnecting my power connection vide Lr No. ADE/Op/KGM Town/D.No. liStZS-ZA, datel 20.06-2025, in respect of property vide H. No. 4-4-148t111 at Survey number 16g, a Viswanadha Colony, Kothagudem town and District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequenly direct the 4th respondent to restore the power connection to the above property forthwith, forthwith in the interest of justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 20115

¶20

Petition ttnder 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 4th rerspondent to restore the power connection in respect of property vide H.No. 4-4-1481711 at Survey number 169, at Viswanadha-Coiony, Kothagudem tolvn and District forthwith.

¶21

counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.v. NAGA REPRESENTING FoR SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR ENERGY

¶23

counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: sRr A. CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NPDCL

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI R.R. KALYAN

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTTE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶27

HYDERABAD

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.28434 of 2025

¶30

ltrH DAY oF FEBRUARY, 2026

Befween:

Valladas Raghavulu.

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana and 4 others.

¶36

Respondents

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Heard Sri P. Rama Sarana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶39

Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and

¶40

Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to address letter to respondent No.4/Assistant Divisional Engineer, NPDCL, Kotagudem Town, for providing power supply connection.

¶42

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the

¶43

liberty prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶44

gpplig4tign_g"!_f ggy,p-e-nd[ngs_hallstandp!-o"re_d*

.PONNA KRI ANT REGI

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI P. RAMA^{SHARANA SHARMA,} IoPUCI

¶50

One CC to SRI R.R. KALYAN,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to^{GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the Stateof Telangana [OUT]}

¶52

One CC to SRI^{A. CHANDRA SHAKER,SC FOR NPDCLIOPUCI}

¶53

Two CD^CoPies

BN w

HIGH COUIRT

DATED:1110212026

6 SIAT
-\t<br>4s
ou 1i tqilft ?litB -b6!

&T.J'* r '

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.28434 of 2025

¶60

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

a
b
\ d4<br>

Valladas Raghavulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valladas Raghavulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Anjaiah Vs Padmavathamma

Chintala Jyothi Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Ajay Kumar Bobbala Vs The State of Telangana

H. Sajida Banu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Akula Kanthamma Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Harshitha Vs Banavath Suman