Telangana High Court
WP/39576/2012 of P. Kanaka Durga Prasada Hanumantha Raju, Vs The Superintendent Engineer (Operation) on 28 December 2012
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39576 OF 2012 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not considering the representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner through his counsel on 11.08.2012 for transfer of
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION No.39576 OF 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way ofmandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not consideringthe representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner through hiscounsel on 11.08.2012 for transfer of Service Connection No.244situated in R.S.No.182 of Kunchanapalli Village, West GodavariDistrict, in the name of Ms. P. Sahana, who is the successor of Sri P. Narasimha Varma, asillegal and arbitrary.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is having three electricityservice connections, which he has taken for agricultural purposes. It isstated that when the petitioner applied for service connection inR.S.No.182, as a GPA holder of his brother Sri P. Narasimha Varma, the same was granted in his name. It isfurther stated that the service connection bearing No.244, which issituated in R.S.No.182 of Kunchanapalli Village, West GodavariDistrict, belongs to his brother.
In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of submitting an application to the respondents to transfer theaforesaid service connection in the name of his daughter Ms. P. Sahana, no steps have been taken.
When the matter came up earlier on 26.12.2012, it wasadjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtaininstructions. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents that the application for transferof service connection should be submitted in prescribed format in callcentres and there is no such application filed before respondent No.5,which is the competent authority.
In this case, it is to be noticed that though the petitioner isseeking transfer of service connection bearing No.244 in the name ofMs. P. Sahana, she is not even made a party to the Writ Petition, eitheras petitioner or respondent. Further, in view of the submission made bythe learned Standing Counsel that there is no application for transfer inthe prescribed format, no direction can be granted as prayed for.
As it is stated that the land in R.S.No.182 belongs to his brother,which is succeeded to Ms. P. Sahana, I deem it appropriate to disposeof the Writ Petition permitting the petitioner and Ms. P. Sahana to filean application for transfer. If any such application is filed, which is inaccordance with the procedure and terms and conditions of supply,respondent No.5 shall consider the same and take appropriate steps inaccordance with law.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall standclosed. No costs.
December 28, 2012MD
________________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
MD
WRIT PETITION No.39576 OF 2012
December 28, 2012