HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38207 of 2014 Date:11.12.2014 Between: Mohd. Saleem, S/o Safiullah . Petitioner And:
The State of Telangana., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Electricity Department, Hyderabad and four others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mir Masood Khan Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Energy (TS) Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri O.Manoher Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been providing electricity connection to the premises bearing No.6-3- 789/B/2, consisting of ground, first and second floors, situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the petitioner’s representations, dated 14.05.2014 and 05.12.2014.
At the hearing, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, submitted that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the other over the premises in question. He has further submitted that when the application was sought to be submitted by the petitioner at the Consumer Service Centre, he was advised to submit either ‘No Objection’ of the landlord or file proof of his being in lawful possession of the premises in question in terms of Condition No.5.2.3 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply and that as, he could not comply with either of the said two requirements, the application was returned.
In my opinion, when an application for release of power supply was made, the authority concerned has to either process the same or reject the same for germane reasons with reference to the Terms and Conditions of Supply. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondents in returning the petitioner’s application cannot be approved. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to submit a fresh application with the Consumer Service Centre, Greenlands, Ameerpet. On receipt of such application, the authority concerned shall consider the same, take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within one week of receipt of such application. In the event, the competent authority decides to reject the petitioner’s application, it shall give reasons in support thereof.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.47809 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
11th December 2014 DR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY