LawSphereX

B. MANOHAR REDDY, HYDERABAD v. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION LTD. HYD ANDANO

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-22. B. MANOHAR REDDY, HYDERABAD v. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION LTD. HYD ANDANO....

Judgment text

I32s2l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO 26108 0F 2008 Between: B lVluthyam R? ddy, 1. B l\,4anohar Reddy (Died as per Lrs PP2 to 5), Sio ! q1q No. 1-2-605/A/7 to 16 igeO 65 yert. , Occl Business, r/o House Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad - 500 010. 2. B Amulya, W/o. B. N4anohar Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o' 1-2-605/AJ9, Lower Tank Bund, HYderabad-80. 3. P. Meena Reddy, W/o. P. srinivasa Reddy, aged about 46 years, R'io 1-2- 605iA/9, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad-8O. aged about 49 years, Rl/o' 1- 4. B. tr,4uthyam Reddy, S/o. Late B,Manohat Eqddy 2-605lAl9, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad-80. Rgddy, aged about 45 years, Rl/o 1- 5. B. Preetham Reddy, Sio. Late B. fvlanohar 2-605lAl9, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad-8O. PP2 lo 5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased petitioner no'1 is per C. O. dt. 22. 11.

2024 in l. A. No. 1/2022) ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Rep by Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad -iis fvfaniging Director, Offlce at Vidyut -s00 004 The Andhra Pradesh Central 2 The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Operations, Hyderabad Power Distribution'Corporation Ltd. Kavadiguda, ... RESPONDENTS praying that in the Petition under Arttcle 226 of lhe constitution of lndia circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of irrlandamus declaring the notice -cum-d isconnection order dated 13-11-2008 and 15-1 1-2008 of the second respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unco nstitutio nal, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to withdraw the said notices . :. 1: l. A. NO: 2 OF 2008( WPMP. NO: 34162 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:r . .

lrrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m'r; be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to disconnect the power supply to t re petitioner service t connection Nos F4-25043 , F4-25044, F4-25-45, F4-25O4e'. I 25047, F4-25048 F4-22632, F4-22634, F4-20382, F4-20379 and F4-21606, p': ding disposal of the writ petrtion Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2: SRI R. VINOD REDDI SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER -7 ; l. _. , -ij , ;.? Grtr,ii '::__ HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA TP NN 1 of ORD ER: Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2, The petationer approached the Court seeking prayer as follows: "...

to issue a writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice-cum-disconnection order dated 13-11-2008 and 15- 11-2008 of the second respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to withdraw the said notices and be pleased to Pass... ". 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of -to 16, Lower property bearing premises Nos. 1-2-605 /A/7 and had been paying power tank bund road, Hyderabad due. The consumption charges regularly without any 2nd -disconnection order dated respondent issued notice-cum payment of 13. 11. 2008 and 15. 11. 2008 demanding I SN. J wPt6t(rs 200 s Rs,69,419/- and Rs. 35,668 respectively, lying ir the name of one Sri S. Ramesh Reddy for the premises be; r ng No. 1-2- 605/A/2, Lower tank bund road, Hyderabad, wl. r I is neighbour to the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a rei) / to the said notices on 1 B. 1 1 . 2008. Hence, the writ petition .

PERU ED THE RE CORD 4. Sri R . Vinod Reddv. lea rned st ndino I iounsel for TSSPDCL, appearino for resoondent NoS 1 and 2, Dla ces reliance on th e averments made in I he counter affid vit filed o n behalf of the resD onden t I 2 and in Darti ular the releva nt oortion of oara No. 4 j; extracted hereunder: "... 1 submit that since the petitioner hereir s the agreement holder and is in possession r f the property right from the year 1987, the petit r ner is liable to pay the arrears. I submit il-; t the petitioner herein is in possession oF ,t I the premises i. e. from H. No. 1-2-605/A/Z to 6 are utilized by the petitioner herein and one rf tlre premises has been given -eater on lease to the : Family CIub. I submit that the petitioner is jiable to pay the arrears due on the two : ervice ry J S\. J \\,t,26108 2008 issued by this connections and the notice I and void"' respondent is perfectly legal I i for I Counsel 5. Sri R.

Vinod Reddy, tearned Standing I I that respondent Nos'l and 2 submits TSSPDCL, appearing for holder and is in petitioner herein is the agreement since the possession of the said property right from the year 1987 he lo 16 No'1-2-605/A12 is liable to pay the arrears, since House one of the the petitioner herein though are utllized by Club' It is to the Greater Family premises had been given further contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing to pay on behalf of the respondents that petitioners are liable and hence the connections on the two service arrears due to rhe petitioner by the respondents notice had been issued legal and valid' and the same is that the interim as borne on record 6. In view of the fact No' 28'11'2OOB vide W P'M'P' by this Court on order granted made absolute vide its order dated 34162 of 2008 has been and it has been in 24. tt. 2OtO in w. P. M. P. No.

34162 of 2008 petitiorler counsel for the the learned force as on date, submitsthattherespondentsrnayproceedagainStthe I :l SN. J \,. P l6I)3 li)03 petitioner by issuing fresh -notices in t event the respondents intend to proceed against th€r )etitioner for recovery. The learned counsel appearing on lehalf of the respondents does not dispute the said subm i1; ion made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on )ehalf of the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the afores; id facts and circumstances of the case and the avermr: rts made at para No. 4 of the counter affidavit filed on rehalf of the respondent No. 2 referred to and extracter I above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the r<i;pondents to proceed against the petitionerJby issuing f r )sh notice to the petitioner in respect of S. C. No. F4-18 74j and F4- 16658, in the event respondents intend t r disconnect the said power supply or proceed for recovery in respect of the dues penrling in respect o S. C. No.

F4- L8743 and F4-16658 pertaining to prot, )rty bearing Number L-2-6O5/A/7 to 16 Lower Tan[: Bund Road, Hyderabad of the petitioner herein. Ac< ordingly the writ petition is disposed of. However, ther e shall be no order as to costs. -trry '/ S\.. I \\ l'] l(, lrrS l(X)S The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order,as to costs. SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Centra ower Distribution Ltd. , 1. The I\,4anaging Director, Andhra Pradesh Office at Vidyut - Soudha The, Andhra Pradesh central 2 The Assistant Engineer, Electncal operations, Power Distribution"Corporation Ltd. Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 3 One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN Advocate [OPUC] TSSPDCL 4 One CC to SRI R VINOD REDDY, SC FOR [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies KKS GJP Af HIGH COURT DATED:2211112024 a\ ( ( 18 itt . : ORDER Ald t. \\/ WP. No. 26108 of 2008 DISPOSING OF TIIE \\'RII'PETTTTON WITHOUT COSTS t'1,/ (

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.