HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2014 DATED:21.10.2014 Between:
Sunil Saraogi … Appellant And Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, State of Telangana Khairathabad Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) All the parties in the appeal are present. Service of notice has been dispensed with. We admit the appeal and by consent of the parties we take up and dispose of the appeal today itself finally.
The writ petitioner - appellant approached the Hon’ble trial Judge with a prayer for restoration of electricity supply line being S.No.040100634 and USE No.101878404 in the name of Esgee Polymers. Admittedly the writ petitioner is not a recorded consumer. So, he has no locus to apply for restoration of the electricity supply. According to us, the learned Judge should have dealt with this aspect only. However, His Lordship has been pleased to decide factual and legal entitlement of the writ petitioner to have connection, which was not an issue at all in the writ petition. We are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to get restoration of electricity supply in the name of another consumer who has not asked for restoration.
The appellant claims that he is lawful occupant of the premises in question and so he wants to apply for a new connection in the same premises.
Learned counsel for the third respondent raised an objection contending that the appellant before us is a trespasser and unauthorized occupant.
Learned counsel for the respondent electricity company submits that if any application is made by the appellant for separate electricity connection, that will be considered in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge and we give liberty to the appellant to make an application for separate electricity connection in his own name and if such an application is made the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the respondent - electricity company, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. A notice shall also be issued to the owner of the premises in question. All points are kept open. All contentions are to be considered by the electricity company. The findings and observations of the Hon’ble single Judge will not be a binding factor, as the issue in question was not the issue fallen for decision and hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction. If separate application has already been made by the appellant, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same shall be considered in terms of this order, there is none a fresh application may be made.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21.10.2014 bnr