Telangana High Court
WP/222/1999 of M/S.SHIRIDI SAIBABA SLAB POLISHING INDUS Vs APSEB HYD AND 3 OTHERS on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 222 of 1999 Between: M/s. Shiridi Sai Baba Slab Polishing Industry rep. by G. Upendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAOWRIT PETITION NO : 222 of 1999
Between:
M/s. Shiridi Sai Baba Slab Polishing Industry rep. by
G. Upendra Kumar, S/o G. Ramachandraiah, aged 23 years, Betamcherla Village, Kurnool District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.
2. The Chief Engineer, Electricity A.P.S.E.B., Cuddapah Zone, Cuddapah District.
3. The Superintendent Engineer,
A.P.S.E.B., Cuddapah,
Cuddapah District.
4. The Assistant Engineer, Betamcherla, Kurnool District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamusdeclaring the Proceedings No.Lr.No.CE/CzCDP/C&P/221/A.91-98-KNL/4722/98, dt21.9.1998 passed by the 2[nd] respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and against theElectricity Supply Act and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit andproper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VEERA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI
The Court made the following :
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard both sides.
Admittedly, in this case, as against the provisional assessment order dated21.9.1998, the petitioner filed regular appeal before the 2[nd] respondent, which ispending consideration. It is only due to the action of the respondents in trying todisconnect the power supply, the present writ petition has been preferred.
Having heard both the counsel and on considering the material on record,since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending, this court cannot go into themerits of the case, at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is open for the respondentsherein to dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible, if not alreadydisposed of. No order as to costs.
30.12.2004
CVM
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on thisThursday day the Thirtieth day of December Two thousand and four.
REGISTRAR
1. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.
2. The Chief Engineer, Electricity A.P.S.E.B., Cuddapah Zone, Cuddapah District.
3. The Superintendent Engineer,
A.P.S.E.B., Cuddapah,
Cuddapah District.
4. The Assistant Engineer, Betamcherla, Kurnool District.
5. 2 CD copies.