WA/1074/2026 of Andela Suresh Kumar Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. B. Venkat Rama Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for Southem Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGSPDCL), appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, Mr. Md. Kaieem Pasha, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Rajender Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. P. Ganesh, leamed Government Pleader for Energy Department, appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learrred counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

2. The appellants are the writ petitioners, who approached the leamed writ Court on alleged inaction of the respondent-Electricity Company in disconnecting the electricity service connections in the name of respondent No.4 alleged to have been obtained on the basis of fabricated documents. 'fhe writ petitionels also sought quashing of the letter dated 01.12.2023 issued blz the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Shapur Nagar Sub-Division, wherein the said officer while dealing with the represenlation of ,,vrit petitioner No.2 for disconnection ol' two setwice connections in the name of respondent No.4, after taking into note the reply of respondent No.4 and awaiting legal opinion fiom the slanding Legal Advisor ol the respondent-Electricity Company, requested the law office of the respondent-Electricity Company to advise in the matter, so as to take necessan/ actlon

3. The leamed rvrit Court dismissed W.P.No.6099 of 2024 on 06.04.2026 hotding inter alia as under: " 1 6 . This Coun, as a Court exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot vcnture into fact finding rvith respect to title and is to the hmited extent of exarrinrng settled possession. fhe case of respondent No.6 of being in occupatlon ol tle subject lan,l lrom :he vear 2001 till thc date of filing of \\, rit petrtion s pr;nu facie denonstrated though the copies of Lease Agreements filed before tlus Court. Th,: L.ease -\greement dated 24.05.2001 and Senice Agreemcnt dated I i.07.2023 is iemonstrate respondent No.6's occupation of subject land for above 25 years as lease holder. Further. respondent No.6 is paying the lease amount to respondent No 4, therefore. respondent No.4's possession and occupation is akin .o that of settled possession on account of Iong standrng occupation from the year 2001. 'Ihtrefore, as an occupier. it is entitled to electriqity connection which it did enjoy during the tirne of ,\rjun Yadav tiom the years 2001 ro 2006 anc through respondent No.,l lronr the year 2006 onwards till date. Mcre occasion of corverting a regular corurectron into a commercial connection cannot be a ground to seek disconnection ofelectricity enjoyed by respondent No.6.

19. Having reaard to the case of both writ petitioners as rvelas the respondent Nos.4 and 6, this Court is of the considered opinion thar the case of rvri: petitioners lacks rnents and is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, ifany, pending shall stand closed."

4. The appellants have two grievances, one relating to the observations made on the question of title and possession over the subject property claimed by respondent No.6, who is the tenant of respondent No.4, in respect of which O.S.No.89 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, has been preferred by respondent No.4 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the writ petitioners. Secondly, the appellants are also aggrieved as their request for grant of fresh electricity connection on the subject property has not been dealt with by the leamed writ Court while dismissing the Writ Petition.

5. Upon hearing ieamed counsel for the appellants, it appears that the appellants are aggrieved by the observations made by the leamed writ Court on the question of title and possession of respondent No.4 or respondent No'6 in respect of the subject property, though the question of declaration of title is pending before the learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in O.S.No.89 of 2023.

6. Out of the said two service connections, one is running since 2001 and the other is granted rn 2022, both in favour of respondent No.4. It is asserted by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that though it is referred to in paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit of the respondent-Electricity + Comparry that the tu'o service connections are said to have been given in the year 2022, one o1-the said service connections was existing as a domestic connection since 2001, which has been subsequently converted to commelcial connection in the vear 2022.

The leamed writ Court examined the case set up b1, the parties taking into account the pleadings and the documents placed on record and did not accept the prayer of the appellants,/writ petitioners for disconnection of electricity service connections enjoyed by respondent No.6, as a tenant of respondent No.4. However, in the process, the learned writ Court appears to have made observations on the question ofpossession of respondent No.6 on the subject property. which while dealing with the prayer of the writ petitioners was requiled to be taken note of as electricity connections are also glanted to a consumer taking into account the occupation ol the property. fhe opinion of the learned writ Courl that respondent No.4 anci consequently, respondent No.6 have been enjoying electricity service connection from 2001, subsequently converted into commercial connection in 2022, and. cannot be disconnected, do not suffer from errors warranting interference by this Court in the plesent appeal. The question ofpossession or title between respondent No.4 and the writ petitioners is subject matter of O.S.No.g9 of 2023 and as such, no final opinion on that issue can be rendered in a writ proceeding. u'here the learned writ Courl has on the basis .f prima facie satisfaction recorded that the prayer of the writ petitioners for disconnection of electricity service connections cannot be allowed. However, since the Suit in O.S.No.S9 of 2023 is pending before the leamed I Additionat District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, any observation made on the question of possession of the parties over the subject property would only be prima facie in nature and should not influence the triai Court in deciding the said Suit

8. We are, therefore, inclined to observe that the learned trial Court would proceed to decide the pending O.S.No.89 of 2023 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the leamed writ Court on the question of title or possession of the rival parties on the subject property. Apart from the above, if the writ petitioners approach the respondent-Electricity Company for a fresh electricity connection, the same has to be dealt with in accordance with law

9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant Writ Appeai is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/.MOHD ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Corporate Office, H.No. 14-166, Bholakpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Dundigal Jeedimetla

3. The Assistant Engineer, Operations, TSSPDCL, Dhulapally Section.

4. The Principal Secretary Department of Energy, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRI B. VENKAT RAMA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRl. N SREEDHAR REDDY, ( SC FOR TGSPDCL) Advocate loPUCl

7. One CC to SRI M. RAJENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

8. One CC to SRI MOHD. ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI, Advocate [OPUC]

9. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY DEPARTMENT, High Court for The State of Telangana, at Hyderabad I OUT] '10. Two CD Copies M PVL ms

HIGH COURT DATED: 30t0912026

ORDER

WA.No.1074 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 0 7 0cr2025 Y ( (- t o o L) t 1ti I4 r s A c) c c I:a

1D )