Telangana High Court
WP/41095/2014 of I.Jayamma Vs The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co.Ltd., on 31 December 2014
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41095 of 2014 Date:31.12.2014 Between: I.Jayamma, W/o Subbi Reddy ..... Petitioner And: The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad and seven others. .....Respondents Counsel for the
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.41095 of 2014Date:31.12.2014
Between:
I.Jayamma,W/o Subbi Reddy
..... Petitioner
And:
The A.P. Southern Power Distribution CompanyLimited, reptd by its Chairman-cum-ManagingDirector, Hyderabad and seven others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.B.Subrahmanyam Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Sri P.Vinod Kumar 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.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declarethe inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 5, in considering thepetitioner’s objections given through legal notice, dated10.01.2014, as illegal and arbitrary.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner andconsidering the pleadings and material on record, thisCourt is of the opinion that this is a vexatious piece oflitigation.
On the petitioner’s own showing, she has filed a suitfor partition against respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the saidsuit is pending before the competent Court of civiljurisdiction. When the said suit is pending, respondentNos.6 to 8 appeared to have submitted an application forrelease of power supply to the premises, which is thesubject matter of the civil suit. As the said application was not being considered, respondent No.6 filed Writ PetitionNo.32108 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court byorder, dated 02.12.2014, by directing respondent Nos.3and 4 to process the application of respondent No.6, takea decision and communicate the same to the petitionerwithin one month from the date of receipt of a copy of theorder. It appears, the petitioner has submitted herobjections, dated 01.01.2014, to the application filed byrespondent No.6 for release of power supply. However,the power supply is stated to have been released in favourof respondent No.6 by respondent No.4. Feeling aggrievedby the release of power supply and non-consideration ofher objections, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
The facts narrated above would show that the rightof the petitioner is still inchoate as, the civil suit filed by herfor partition against respondent Nos.6 to 8 is pending. Thepetitioner has not explained as to how her interests will beadversely affected by release of power supply at theinstance of respondent No.6. Electricity being an essentialamenity for a human being in the contemporary times, theattitude of the petitioner in opposing the release of powersupply is perceived as highly unreasonable. Mere releaseof power supply to the premises which is subject matter ofcivil suit would not in any manner deprive the legal rightsof the petitioner in the civil suit.
In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is whollymeritless and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.51469 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interimrelief is dismissed as infructuous.
___________________________
JUSTICE
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
31[st] December 2014DR