HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.16422 of 2012 Date : 24-12-2014 Between :
M/s. Saptagiri Constructions, Represented by its Partner C.H. Venugopal, Secunderabad .. Petitioner And The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. D. Linga Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 : Mr. S.V. Ramana for Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt. A. Deepti, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10 : Mr. Prabhakar Sripada The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not releasing power supply to the petitioner’s building situated in plot No.57, H.No.9-1-219 to 232, St. Mary’s Road, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, it has come out that in pursuance of the interim order dated 7-6-2012 granted by this Court in WPMP No.21095 of 2012, power supply has been released to the above mentioned premises of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition as it is conceived has become infructuous. However, Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to enjoy the power supply without obtaining occupancy certificate from respondent No.2.
The averments filed in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the interim order dated 7-6-2012 referred to above show that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the representation dated 18-4-2012 made by it in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, for grant of occupancy certificate, is not being considered.
As obtaining of occupancy certificate is a statutory requirement, the petitioner is bound to obtain the same and in the absence of such occupancy certificate, it is not entitled to enjoy the power supply. As respondent No.2 is stated to be sitting over the representation dated 18-4-
2012 of the petitioner, the said respondent is directed to consider the same after giving notice and personal hearing to the petitioner and the impleaded respondents i.e., respondent No.6 to 10, and after holding personal enquiry, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner, respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.6 to 10, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 shall take appropriate action in respect of the service connection released to the petitioner’s building subject to the result of the decision taken by respondent No.2 regarding grant of occupancy certificate to the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 24-12-2014 AM