Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another v. U.p.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others,,, which pertains to illegal construction

3. Shri Hitesh Kumar Jain, S/o. Shri Kanral Jain, aged about 37 years' Occ ; Business, Rr/o. H. No. 5-1-5261N1, flat No. 201, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad 500 001.

4. Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, s/o Shri Kanraj Jain, aged about 43 years, Occ ; Business, R/o. H. No.5-1-85, Old Beat Bazaar, Warangal, Telangana State. 5. Smt. Bhavana Devi, W/o Shri Anil Kumar Jain, aged about 40 years, Occ ; Housewife Rl/o. H. No. 5-1-85, Old Beat Bazaar, Warangal, Telangana State. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Orde(s), or Direction(s), more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official Respondents in failing to comply with the general directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Barjatya {2024 INSC 990) as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of their statutory and constitutional obligations, pursuant to the representation dated 21 December 2024 submitted by the Petitioner. lt is further prayed that this =7 Hon'ble court may direct the official Respondents to take immediate and appropriate actions to ensure strict compliance with the aforesaid general directions issued by the Hon'ble supreme court, thereby addressing the grievances raised in the Petitioner's representation dated 2'1 December 2024, io the interest of justice. counsel for the Petitioner : SRt BASANTH KUMAR soNl (pARTy-tN-pERSoN) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5 : SRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR ARKOT, SC FOR TGNPDCL The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No.5995 ot 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Basanth Kumar Soni, party-in-person, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counse! for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent No.l and Sra Chandra Shekhar Arkot, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. The etitioner- artv rn oerson aDDro ached the Cou rt r er as r "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order(s), or Direction(s), more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official Respondents in Failing to comply with the general directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Barjatya (2024 INSC 990) as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of their statutory and constitutional obligations, pursuant to the representation dated 2l December 2024 submitted by the Petitioner. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may direct the official Respondents to take immediate and appropriate actions to ensure strict compliance with the aforesaid general directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby addressing the grievances raised in the Petitioner's representation dated 2 SN, J wP 5995 2025 21 December 2024, in the interest of justice. In the Alternate pass such other order(s) as this Hon,ble Court deemed proper in the circumstances of the case on hand in the interest of justice.,,

3. The case of the party-in-person, in brieF, is that the petitioner currently is prosecuting W.p.No.25639 of ZO23 against illegal constructions at premises H.No.5-2-463 and 464 at Risara Abdullah, Hyderabad which is pending final adjudication on the file of this Court. The City planning Department of the GHMC, vide its letter dated i.6.09.2022, directed the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 5 to remove the unauthorized constructions forthwith, however, the unofficial respondents failed to remove the unauthorized constructions. Aggrieved by the same, the party-in-person filed the present writ petition.

4. It is the specific case of the party-in-person that the party_ in-person, vide detailed representation dated 21.02.2024 addressed to the respondent No.2 herein, referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2024 INSC 990 passed tn "Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.p.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others,,, which pertains to illegal constructions and the specific directions issued at paragraph ] , J SN, J wP 5995 2025 No.21(iv) of the said judgment, which clearly said that all the necessary service connections, such as, electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc, shall be given by the service provider /Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occu pation certificate.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TG TRANSCO, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that in pursuance to the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2024, action had already been initiated by the official respondents herein and notice dated 29.OL.2025 had also been issued to the petitioner herein informing the petitioner that a letter had been addressed for legal opinion whether to disconnect power supply at 5-2-463 and 464 situated at Risala Abdullah, Hyderabad vide dispatch No.1373, dated 30.12.2024 through proper channel and on receipt of legal instructions, the said instructions as indicated through the legal opinion would be seriously followed.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for TG NPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's 4 SN, J wP 5995 1025 representation dated 21.L?.2O24 in accordance to law, within a reasonable period. -

1.|:

7. Takinq into consider tio n: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for TGSpDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Chandra Shekhar Arkot, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6, c) The contents of the petitioner's representation dated 2L.L2.2O24, which had been acknowledged by the office of the respondent No.2 on 2L.I-2.2024 itself and, d) The contents of the notice dated 29.O1.2025 issued to the petitioner/party-in-person by the respondent No.2 herein, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders -EW 5 SN, J wP 5995 2025 on petitioner's representation dated ZL.L2.2OZ4 in accordance to law within a period of eight (g) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duty communicate the decision on the said representation to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 1i To

1. The Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Telangana Ltd. ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 SA bJr Hyderabad. The Asst. Division Engineer, (Elect ,), Operation' Troop Bazar Sub-Division' Troop Bazar, HYderabad. One CC to o;; aa to sRl N sREEDHAR REDDY, sc FoR TGSPDCL [oPUC] One CC to SRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR ARKOT' SC FOR TGNPDCL [OPUC] O"" CC to SRI BASANTH KUMAR SONI (PARTY-IN-PERSON) (OPUC) Two CD Copiesw HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 i ,l ,i i I 0 I ORDER WP.No.5995 ot 2025 (: q o t) flE STA rt: 1 P z a 05HNM I nEsr^TCr-r?O. I DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. RI 1