WP/17369/2025 of Jella Bheemaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 24 February 2026

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 24-O5-2Ct25 rejecting the case of petitioner for grant of new electric service connection to his house bearing No. 2-22 situated at Singarayapeta (Thapalpur) Village, Jannaram Mandal, Mancherial.

2. The case of petitioner is that he had let out his house to Sri Nalla Sahajeevan Reddy and his family and came to Hyderabad for children's education; he purchased a open plot under sale deed dated 23-01-1988 and thereafter, constructed house in 1997 with the permission of Gram Panchayat and he I I \

has been continuously paying taxes; one day he was informed by his tenant that electric meter was burnt and they are taking steps for alternative meter; there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the tenant as it is a common phenomenon in that area due to heavy fluctuations in the supply, but instead of replacing the burnt meter, the 4dr respondent, who is the son of tenant of petitioner played mischief and shifted the existing service connections standing in the name of his father and mother into this house, taking advantage of the situation that he is an employee of electricity department working at Venkataraopet Sub-station. Petitioner also stated that fraudulently, the 4th respondent filed O.S. No. 2O of 2022 on the file of Principat Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet against his father for partition by showing petitioner's propert5r as one of the items.

2.1. Petitioner also filed O.S.No. 123 of 2023 for perrnanent injunction against the sons (as the original tenant Sri Sahajeevan Reddy passed away) and obtained an order injunction in IA No. 423 of 2023 on 15.12.2023. It is also the case of petitioner that he was forced to file the suit for injunction against the sons of the tenant as they were trying to aJ re-enter into the house after the death of their father. As the tenant and his family also committed default, the service connect.ons were also disconnected. The service connections installec in the house of petitioner bearing No. 81 and 758 belong to the tenant Sri Sahajeevan Reddy and his wife Smt. Nalla Subhadra. It is stated, the department also cooperated for illegal shifting of service connections into the house of petitioner by collucting with the 4tr respondent and petitioner is ready and willing trt pay the arrears which are due and liable for the service connection belonging to him and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

2.2. Petitioner is stated to have made a representation to the District Collector who is in-charge of Prajavani on 06.12.20114 and also O6.OL.2025 with regard to issuing service connection and also for removing HT lines poles from his patta land. Thr: said complaint was forwarded to the 2"d respondent and the Vigilance Officer inspected and recorded their statements. He liled Writ Petition No. 137 L2 of 2025 meanwhile, the 2nd resipondent even before the notice is ordered, passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 stating that petitioner has one servicrl connection in H.No. 2-22 and he allowed to service I I

connections standing in the name of Sri N.S. Reddy and Smt. Nalla Subhadra in the house bearing No.2-22.

3. By order dated L6.O7.2O25, this Court directed Respondents 2 and 3 to grant provisional service connection to petitioner house bearing No. 2-22 at Thapalpur, Jennaram, Mancherial District.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, the 2"d respondent stated that petitioner approached this Court by suppressing the true facts and that there are arrears to the service connection in the premises No. 2-22; instead of clearing the arrears he has come up witJ: a false case and the 4th respondent and petitioner are claiming ownership for the same property bearing No.2-22 and2-2211; O.S. No. 156 of 2O2l is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet and that Service Connection No. 81 was originally released on 24.05.1982 for H. No. 2-22; there was a small hut and later developed into a RCC building and botl: petitioner and Sri N. Sahajeevan Reddy have reportedly residing in the said premises from last thirty years. tt is stated, petitioner resides in the premises bearing No. 2-22 and he is objecting for disconnection of service connection No. SC-81 in the narne of Sri Nalla

Sahajeevan Reddy having arrears of Rs.89,240/- and SC No. 758 in the name of Smt. Nalla Subhadra having arrears of Rs. 16,559/- and Service Connection 81 was disconnected at the pole and SC No. 542 is standing in the name of petitioner having arrears of Rs.22,833/-, SC No. 81 having areas of Rs.89,22t0/-, SC No. 758 arrears of Rs. 16,559/-. It is the specifrc r:ase of Respondents I to 3 that Service Connection Nos. 8 I and '758 were released after collecting required documents; therefore , prayed for dismissal of Writ Petition.

5. The 4h respondent also filed an elaborate counter, sum and substance of which is, petitioner is not the owner of the subject house and he has no right to get electricit5r connection from the authorities concerned. It is settled law that without having any valid title, a person is not entitled to get power connection, as such, the electricity authorities did not initiate tc, grant power connection. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. in the eye of law, and the same may be dismissed.

5. l. It is also stated, petitioner suppressed the material facts that Respondent No.4 fiIed Writ Petition No.32156 of 2024 against him, meanwhile this Court directed the authority I I

concerned to disconnect power connection of petitioner. Accordingly, the then electricity authorities disconnected the power connection of petitioner, the same is not disclosed in this Writ Petition. Further, petitioner failed to produce any documents to show his ownership over the property. 5-2. It is also stated, the 3'd respondent issued notice dated 14.05.2025 alleging that the 4ft respondent utilized the power supply for domestic purpose through SC Nos. 81 and 758 without paying CC bills by managing the departmental staff and directed him to pay arrears which clearly shows that petitioner is not having any right or jurisdiction and locus to file Writ Petition, hence, it is not maintainable in the eye of law. [n those circumstances, it is prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed.

6. Heard Sri K. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K. Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the 4ft respondent.

7. Now the point for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled for new connection and whether impugned order is liable to be set-aside I

8. It is the specilic case of petitioner that the tenant's son i.r'. the 4*t respondent illegally shiftect the service connections bearing No. 81 and 75g into his house bearing No. 2-22 when the premises was let out to his father by misreprt:senting that the exiting meter of petitio ner uid.e service connection No. 542 was burnt and they represented that they are takir:g steps for replacing the burnt meter, but records show that Senrice connections No. g 1 and 75g are standing in the name of Sri Nalla Sahajeevan Reddy and smt. Nalla subhadra who are husband and wife, have been installed in the house of petitioner bearing No. 2-22. It is also the specific case of petitioner that he did not give any permission for shifting the existing connections standing in the name of tenants in some other prernises into his house. To answer this, in the counter, Divisional Engineer (operations) at para 11 stated that both the service connections No. gl and Tsg were released after collecting.equired documents such as Id proof, gram panchayat certificate and land documents and after coilecting applicabre charges, b,t in support thereof, no such materiar is produced. service cortnection No. g 1 was released in favour of Sri Nalla sahajeevan Reddy on 24.os.rgg2 as stated in para 5 of the I I \ \

counter, but petitioner purchased the plot on 23-L2-1988. Therefore, it can be presumed that Service Connection No. 81 was given to Sri Nalta Sahajeevan Reddy in a different premises, but not in the house of petitioner. Therefore, when the existing service connections standing in the name of Sri Nalla Sahajeevan Red.dy and Smt. Nalla Subhadra who are tenants of petitioner, how these connections were shifted into the premises of petitioner without his written consent is the question for consideration. This question could not be explained in counter or during the course of arguments. From the above, it is clear that Respondents 2 and 3 failed to bring the said information before this Court. g. From the counter filed by the 4th respondent, it is revealed that the department conducted an enquiry and the Assistant Divisional Engineer submitted report to the Superintendent Engineer (Operations), Mancherial. In the said report, lapses were noticed by the Enquiry officer against the 4th respondent holding that "HeadmittedinthestatementandfailedtopayCCcharges against the sc No. 62915-00081 and 62915-000758 even after noticing himself that the supply is utilized by his parents since years together'"

I I I Therefore, the parents of the 4th respondent who are tenants, at the insrance of the 4e respondent, shifted the existing service connections into the house of petitioner, utilized the energr and became defaulters and therefore they are in arrears to the department, not by petitioner. However, the 4tr, respondent tried to convenience this court that in view of the pendency of suit for partir.ion, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This court is unable to countenance the said submission as the pendency of suit has no bearing at all with regard to shifting of service connections 81 and 758 into the premises bearing No. 2-22 without t.:e written permission of petitioner.

10. It is to be seen, firstly, there is no written permission from petitioner to shift the existing connections into the housr: of petitioner. Secondly, as per the enquiry report lapses wer€ found against the 4th respondent by the department itself. In that backdrop, to provide new service connection to petitioner 'lemanding him to pay the arrears payable by parents of the 4th respondents, that too, having found that parents of the 4ut reslrondent are liabre to pay, is absolutely incorrect and the said dr:mand by Respondents 2 and,3 is not a valid one. That apart, the refusal order which is impugned in the writ t I \ \

Petition is not even marked to petitioner which shows the arbitrariness on the part of official respondents.

11. This court by way of interim order dated 23.06.2025 had already directed the department to provide provisional service connection to petitioner's house bearing H. No. 2-22 and the same has not been complied with till date.

12. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2025 is set-aside. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to issue new connection to petitioner by collecting usual charges and arrears of Rs. 22,8331- for service connection bearing No. 542 within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. "-/_ __... -* To, SD/- C. DEEPIKA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Depa Telangana State, Hyderabad. Secretariat,

2. The Divisional Engineer, TGNPDCL, Mancherial District, At Mancherial.

4. One CC to SRI KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA, Advocate. [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSNPDCL. [OPUC]

7. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate. [OPUC]

8. Two CD Copies. t, liIt BSK GJP +p

HIGH COIJRT DATED:2 410212026 No.17369 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION OUT COSTS u

E. o 12 tlAfi 2026 Pi. IJ -t\ * i ft l. ,"" .,| ti - b xb