Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1274 Tel

Item No.9



     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                 AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                  WRIT APPEAL No.583 OF 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The present appeal is directed against an order dated

18.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15562 of

2020 filed by the respondents No.2 to 9/writ petitioners assailing the

action of the official respondents of disconnecting the electricity

supply to their units situated in Shastripuram, Hyderabad without

following the due process of law and seeking restoration of the

electricity supply.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed

restoration of the electricity supply to the premises of the writ

petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of the order, with

a rider that the said order will not preclude the official respondents

from putting the writ petitioners on a fresh notice, calling for an

explanation and thereafter, taking action in accordance with law.

3. Mr. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents No.11 to 15/Telangana State Southern Power Distribution

Company Limited (for short 'TSSPDCL') states that in compliance

with the impugned order, the respondents No.11 to 15/TSSPDCL had

restored the electricity supply at the premises of the writ petitioners

and thereafter, issued fresh notices to show cause. The writ

W.A.No.583 of 2020 page 1 of 3 petitioners had responded to the said show cause notices whereafter,

fresh orders were passed directing disconnection of electricity supply,

and the electricity supply at the premises of the writ petitioners has

since been disconnected.

4. Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant/Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short 'the

GHMC') submits that so far, only the respondent No.3 has vacated the

subject premises whereas, Mr. Mukheed, learned counsel appearing

for the private respondents No.2 to 9 asserts that the respondents

No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have vacated the premises.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC states, on instructions

from Mr. Anjaneyulu, Liaison Officer, who is present along with him

in the virtual hearing, that the statement made on behalf of the

respondent Nos.2 to 9 is incorrect and that even as on date, only the

respondent No.3 has moved out of the premises whereas, the rest of

the private respondents are continuing to operate their industries from

the units in question. It is stated by the Liaison Officer that the

aforesaid respondents are using the plots in question as a dumping

yard where plastic material is segregated, knowing very well that the

said activity is prohibited.

6. If the aforesaid activity is prohibited as per law, then it is for

the appellant/GHMC to take appropriate action to stop the same in

accordance with law.

W.A.No.583 of 2020 page 2 of 3

7. In view of the submission made by learned Standing Counsel

for the respondents No.11 to 15/TSSPDCL that fresh notices were

issued to the writ petitioners in terms of the impugned order and after

considering their replies, the electricity supply at their premises has

been disconnected, nothing survives for adjudication in the present

appeal, which is accordingly, disposed of along with the pending

applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 20.04.2021 Lur/vs

W.A.No.583 of 2020 page 3 of 3