The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.JAMALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRt N.SREEDHAR I IEDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to g : -- The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAJ<A WRIT PETITION No.359 0F 202s ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of respondent No.4 in considering its representation, as being unjust and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the 4m respondent to consider the same expeditiously.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that it is a Trust registered as a public Charitable and Non-Profit Organization, formed exclusively by the members of Marwadi Communit5r of Siddipet District; that it had acquired open plot of land admeasuring 1966.5 sq. yards in survey No.205/ 1 through registered sale deed, di.lS.O6.2O22 uide document No.7555 /2022 executed by its.vendor Syed Mujtaba Ali and since then, it is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property; and that it had constructed a temporary precast boundary wall and a temple therein.

4. Petitioner further contends that the unofl-rcial respondents have disputed the title of the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property based on a judgment and decree, dt.22.O1.2023 in OS.No.216 of 2074, to which t1.e petitioner is not a party; that thereafter it had liled a complaint before the police 2 authorities and also hled a suit uide O.S.No. i O ol , )24 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ciry Civil Court ar i ddipet seeking permanent injunction against the unofficial rr::,1 ondcnts; that pending the suit, the unofficial respondents have :rp rlied for layout in respect of the aforesaid propert5r before the Dirc,c _orate of Town & Country Planning (TCp) by virrue ,r application No.TS/O411788 /2024; that in view of the pe r ling disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial rcs 1 ondcnts, the petitioner had submitted representation requc:.ing the 2od respondent not to give electricil_v connection to the sr bject properly until the matter is resolved by the competent Civii a ourt and the said representation is pending. Aggrieved there.l r , the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Counter affidavit has been fiied by responck r t Nos.2 to 4 stating that the representation submitted by the pe r tioner, which was addressed to the Executive Engineer, TGSPDCL iiddipet, was without signature and therefore the said represente I on needs no consideration.

6. By the counter afirdavit it is further statc( L that in the aforementioned suit filed by the petitioner, thc .nterlocutory application filed by the petilioner seeking the relief rf temporary injunction was dismissed uide ord.cr, dt.O2.05.2O2,' that under Clause 5.2 of General Terms and Conditions oI' iiupply, new connection or additional load for supply of electric i y u,ould be 3 given based on the documentary evidence to be filed along with the application; that as the application of the petitioner was unsigned it was not considered by the respondents; and that if there are any private disputes inter se the petitioner arld respondent Nos.5 to g, it is open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and thus, the Writ petition is devoid of merit and prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.

7. Petitioner had filed reply to the aforesaid counter frled by the official respondents. By the said reply, the petitioner had reiterated the writ averments stating that a civil suit is pending before the competent Civil Court in respect of the subject property and grant of electricitlr connection to the unofficial respondents would directly prejudice the outcome of the pending suit and prayed to allow the writ petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions made as above and since, in the counter filed by the official respondents it is stated that the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner is an unsigned complaint, which was not disputed by the petitioner in the reply filed by the peritioner, except stating that the petitioner had given representation to the 4fr respondent, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner by directing the respondents to consider an unsigned representation.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 4 Consequently, miscellaneous applications, p(.r .ding if any, shall stand closed. , / - //TRUE COPY// SDi.I :.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSI: TA,NT REGISTRAR ,/- I ,:-* \__.., SECTION OFFICER Hvderabad. [OUT]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the Statt: lf Telangana at 2. Ohe CC to SRI K.JAIVALI, Advocate [OPUC] e. On" CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate (OPL ( )) 4. Two CD CoPies To SA GJP 9tr ,ir.t E OF i1 q 5c .-) \ N'. N o \- + I ) HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER WP.No.359 of 2025 DISMISSTI.IG THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 6 /-a d'o q,