Telangana High Court
WP/20419/2013 of V.H.T. Rama Rao, Vs The Assistant Engineer, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.20419 of 2013 Dated 30th December, 2014 Between: V.H.T.Rama Rao …Petitioner And The Assistant Engineer, Balaji Nagar, A.P.Central Power Distribution Company, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWrit Petition No.20419 of 2013
Between:
Dated 30thDecember, 2014
V.H.T.Rama Rao
And
…Petitioner
The Assistant Engineer, Balaji Nagar, A.P.Central Power DistributionCompany, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.G.Prasad Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.V.Ramanafor Sri O.Manohar Reddy 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 declare the action ofrespondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the petitioner’s applicationfor issuing a fresh electricity connection as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner pleaded that he has purchased plot No.388 ofAnjaneya Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtunder a registered sale deed, dated 16.03.2004. That on 21.02.2013,he has applied to respondent No.1 for release of electricityconnection. His grievance is that his application is not considered andservice connection is not released.
Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter aliastated that in respect of the same premises for which the petitioner hasapplied for service connection, there is also an existing serviceconnection bearing SC.No.22015-00211 standing in the name of oneV.N.Subhash Chandra Bose, that the said service connection was disconnected for non-payment of consumption charges and that as inFebruary, 2013 there were arrears to the tune of Rs.96,600/-, on thesaid service connection. It is therefore asserted that as there arearrears payable on the same premises, a fresh service connectioncannot be granted as per the respondents’ terms and conditions ofsupply unless those arrears are paid.
In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is inter alia statedthat he has purchased plot No.388 under a separate registered saledeed and that the arrears pleaded by the respondents are in respect ofthe premises situated over plot No.389 and that therefore, therespondents cannot deny release of service connection to him for non-payment of arrears in respect of plot No.389.
At the hearing, Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel, representingSri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,placed before the Court a copy of an approved building plan, a perusalof which, would show that the plan was approved in respect of buildingto be constructed over plot Nos.388 and 389.
Sri T.G.Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, isunable to deny this fact.
Inasmuch as the building appeared to have been constructedover both the plots, namely, plot Nos.388 and 389, the plea of thepetitioner that the arrears payable in respect of service connection overplot No.389 cannot be shown as the reason for denying electricityconnection is without merit.
For the above-mentioned reasons, no mandamus can begranted to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner pays the arrears ofelectricity charges in respect of existing service connection, therespondents shall consider release of fresh service connection to him.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.25038of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
30[th] December, 2014VGB
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J