Smt. G.Pushpalatha vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 6766 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. G.Pushpalatha vs The State Of Telangana on 26 November, 2025

          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                              AND
            THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

                         WRIT APPEAL No.1269 OF 2025

Mr. D. Kaval Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

The learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing for the respondent No.1.

Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to
4.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The matter has been kept today for further instructions of

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The appellants were writ petitioners in W.P.No.32999 of

2025, an order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. By the impugned order, dated 04.11.2025, the learned Single

Judge disposed of the said writ petition by directing the

respondents/TGSPDCL to release the electricity connections, line

clearance and meters to the concerned premises, subject to the

appellants/writ petitioners complying with the directions issued by

the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya V. U.P. Avas Evam

Vikas Parishad 1 and pursuant to the statutory requirements

prescribed by the local authorities.

4. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2025

to the extent that the respondents have appropriated money from

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767

the appellants, but has failed to release the electricity to the

appellants.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants however does

not have any answer to the memo issued by the respondent

No.4/the Superintending Engineer-TGSPDCL dated 25.07.2025 for

production of building permission from GHMC and Occupancy

certificate, at the time of release of service vide Circular Memo

No.CMD/CGM(Comml.)/SE(C)/DE(C)/ADE-I/D.No.410/15, dated

16.05.2015. Learned counsel also submits that the appellants are

not in possession of the Occupancy certificate.

7. We hence do not find any error in the order which is the

subject matter of challenge. The Supreme Court has issued clear

guidelines in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (supra) and the learned

Single Judge has allowed and disposed of the writ petition subject

to the appellants/petitioners complying with such guidelines. In

the absence of Occupancy certificate, we cannot hold the impugned

order to be either erroneous or devoid of any substance.

8. The appellants shall be at liberty to make an appropriate

Application before the TGSPDCL for returning/refund of any excess

money which the latter may have taken for processing the

appellants request for release of electricity.

9. W.A.No.1269 of 2025, along with all connected applications,

is accordingly dismissed in terms of the above. There shall be no

order as to costs.

1.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

_____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 26.11.2025 EDS

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1269 OF 2025

DATE: 26.11.2025 EDS